I do not believe anyone can disagree with the proposition that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian society. Neither do I believe anyone can disagree with the proposition that the SDA is a post-Constitutional society. Nor can anyone disagree that the great majority of the citizens of this destructive and sad land are worshipers of civil government, seeing the civil government as the source of all power, all knowledge, all ability to do good, all comfort and all protection. Furthermore, most folks believe that the way to share in some of the god-like power of the State is to become a participant in the process of democracy. Once you can get a majority of those who participate in the political process to agree with you about something you are able to plunder your neighbor's property without any fear of punishment.
That introduction brings me to the topic of the day....historic preservation districts. I am sure you are all familiar with what these things are. Some do-gooder busybodies get the idea into their heads that someone else's home should be preserved forever as a historic monument to the past. City councils approve laws creating historic preservation districts which essentially make the declaration that any home within that particular geo-political boundary is now the property of the government, to do with it whatever it pleases. This activity is justified by career politicians and people who have no concept of how to mind their own business as necessary to protect "our historic buildings." How those buildings went from belonging to an individual to belonging to the collective is never explained. Nor is it ever explained why "we" should suddenly have the right to own someone else's personal property.
The Anderson house is a case in point. Go here for the story. The Anderson house is a privately owned home in downtown Denver that a group of politically active people with connections to Denver city government has decided should belong to them. The link above takes you to their propaganda page on which they list the three reasons why they should be legally permitted to steal the home of a private citizen. Let's consider them, shall we?
The first reason given for forcibly confiscating the real property of another citizen is that "the Anderson House is a reminder of the Denver and state’s culture and heritage." I wonder who made that decision? Apparently some fellow who lived in the home in the past gained some notoriety because he got himself involved in a fistfight and ended up shooting someone. My goodness, if that is sufficient cause to declare a home to be a "reminder of Denver's culture and heritage," as the thieves are trying to tell us, then why is every other home in that part of the city not also being stolen? There are hundreds of homes in that area right now that are riddled with bullet holes from drive-by shootings. Fistfights break out in front yards every night. Why not just declare the entire area a historic preservation district and throw all the gang members out of their shanties? The answer to that question is best determined by following the tried and true maxim to follow the money.
The second reason given for stealing a man's real property is, "the Anderson House’s significance will lead to financial gain for the owner." How kind and generous of these crooks to inform the person they are robbing that their act of robbery will result in significant "financial gain" for him. Could it be any more obvious that the people attempting to use the law to steal this man's house are trying to absolve themselves for the sin of theft? They know what they are doing is wrong so they try to convince themselves and others that their behavior is really moral because their victim will make some money on the deal. I really love this touch and think it should be applied to life in general. Imagine walking around the neighborhood where the Anderson house is at night. Before long you will either be lying upon the ground, unconscious, because you were a victim of the "knockout game" or you will be accosted by some gun wielding thug who will inform you that stealing your money is financially good for you. All you have to do is trust the people who are assaulting you since they always know what is best for you.
The petition to put this home under the dreaded historic preservation rules goes on to say that, "residents of Jefferson Park are asking the property owner to preserve
his home for present and future generations and to sell the property to a
developer interested in preserving the rich history and character of
his historic Queen Anne style home instead of to a developer one who
plans its demolition." Please answer one question for me. Why is this anyone's business but the owner of the home? Who cares what the other residents of the area think? I would like to have all of the people on my block paint their homes hot pink. If I can get enough people together and convince a career politician to create a special district for my street I can get my way. Isn't socialistic democracy grand? I wonder....do all the residents of Jefferson Park agree with this strong-arm tactic, as the article suggests, or are they using "residents" in the same way "we" or "our" is always used? I bet many of the homeowner's fellow residents want to leave the poor fellow alone.
The final reason given for using the coercive power of government to steal a man's home is, "Demolition of the Anderson House is an irreversible demolition of our history." First of all, it is not a demolition of my history. I have no idea who the "our" is in that statement. I also suspect that it is not a demolition of the history of most of the folks who live in Jefferson Park, unless they were alive when that fistfight and shootout took place. Furthermore, what does it mean to demolish history? How can history be demolished? And if history can be demolished, why shouldn't it be? I know for a fact that I would love to demolish a huge part of my history. Then I would be able to get a loan, walk down the streets without having people come up to me and yell "pervert!" and generally be a happier person. I think the demolition of history is a good thing, don't you?
I have another simple question for those people who are using the hegemonic power of government to force another man to give up his real property rights. Why don't you just buy the house yourselves? If you are so all-fired concerned about preserving history and remembering the good old days of fistfights and shootings, band together, raise some funds and make the homeowner an offer he can't refuse. Isn't it strange that envy-filled people like those promoting the theft of this man's home are incapable of even conceiving of the possibility of using their own money to do something they want done? Worshipers of government never use their own money. They always flee to their god to get things done and, sadly, their god is very good at the act of robbery.