Owning our own property and having an expectation of privacy are two parts of our lives that should extend well beyond the reach of government. Sadly, the accepted definitions of both are slowly being replaced with concepts that are in one case, being altered via intrusive laws, regulations and legal precedent, and the other that is changing both by government – and voluntarily by individuals.
There are those among us who believe that all money belongs to the government. If this is true, then who owns the property and goods that are purchased with that money? Also, how is it possible to purchase anything with money that belongs to someone else, yet the ownership rights are given to the purchaser?
Believing the philosophy of government-owned currency is accepting the belief that we are all subject to a flat-tax of 100%.
When the Supreme Court ruled that a government entity could seize private land under the umbrella of eminent domain – and then sell that property to another private party, the Court in effect implied that there is no such creature as a property owner, only a caretaker of common property.
The thinking used to reach this decision is eerily similar to the communist concept of property “ownership,” that is if this word does somehow exist in a communist’s vocabulary.
The transition to a common property mentality will now slow down, since such a radical idea is more easily implemented in gradual steps. As a result, the assimilation of property will not happen outright, since individuals will voluntarily surrender their individual belongings and identities slowly over time as the concept of personal property is erased; this process is similar to how motorists eventually accepted being told to wear their seat belts in their own vehicles.
The thought of government at any level possessing the ability to take private property away for any reason is terrifying. Unfortunately, there are those among us who are voluntarily surrendering the most personal parts of their lives for no other reason than to make that information public knowledge.
For example, on news shows such as 20/20, or any reality crime show where a violent crime is recreated with interviews of the victims’ families and friends, those survivors are asked to stage some very personal moments, such as where they tell stories about the victim to each other, look at old photographs, cry at a gravesite – or in one instance, embrace a portrait of a victim and rock back and forth in a church pew. The concept of property ownership becomes even harder to grasp when we are asked to surrender the most personal thoughts and moments that define us to ourselves.
When enough individuals are willing to disclose information about their lives – details that are rarely revealed to others, if they are shared at all, then their definition of privacy is twisted into an unrecognizable variation that makes it more difficult for everyone else to want to keep the same parts of their own lives private.
If celebrities want to make every part of their lives public knowledge in the name of cheap publicity, then there is nothing from stopping them. However, the more information that someone volunteers to give about themselves, the less respect they should expect in return. When Miley Cyrus created the perception that she has the morals of a professional barfly, she received much attention, mostly in the form of unflattering jokes and ridicule.
How many people complain about the NSA and law enforcement spying on them while the names of their spouses, children and pets – with accompanying stick figures – are plastered on the rear windows of their cars?
The rift between American citizens and elected/appointed leaders continues to widen. Many of these leaders are less afraid to hide their intentions to control the governed than in the past. Probably the biggest tool that is at their disposal is the forfeiture of private property. While these folks are trying to take that property, others are handing over the ability to make this job easier via the surrendering of their privacy. Just because some people have surrendered their most personal attributes does not mean that everyone else is required to follow; surrender your mind, surrender yourself.
Image: Courtesy of: http://godandpoliticsuk.org/2013/10/03/since-when-did-the-church-of-england-decide-to-curl-up-in-the-corner-and-wait-to-die/