Comments on: The new open-door policy

By: Brian J.

Brian J. — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:48:56 +0000

I have made this point myself to my beautiful wife.

She thought, probably correctly, that I am a crackpot for thinking it.

By: fillyjonk

fillyjonk — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:03:16 +0000

My father often said that the greatest failing he could see with Communism was that people did not own their property, and thus, had no motivation to keep it up (or even avoid damaging it).

Is there anywhere in this country where “The Projects” are not dangerous hellholes? My main experience in hearing about them were the Detroit and Chicago news stories, which tended to be fairly hair-raising.

By: Tatyana

Tatyana — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:06:42 +0000

Correct, except he overlook another aspect: government is a faceless entity that’s not interested in protecting its investment.
The clerks and bureaucrats are getting their salaries and benefits no matter what. They can care less if the houses are falling into disrepair; all they interested in is control. For an example of the way government will manage its real estate holdings look at the so called “projects”.
It’s a life in prison, with prison rules and prison hierarchies – only the head of that hierarchy is a committee of various government officials, on whose benevolence you’ll have to depend for the roof above your head.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:57:14 +0000

I’m not saying the powers that be would have their landlords and ladies misuse that right to enter a private residence

I’d say it. They already have other agents of theirs do so, even without the landlord-tenant thing being involved.

One of the reasons I was a bit radical on opposing gun control during the 1990s was the way the ATF was conducting no-knock raids based on scant cause. There are drug-legalization proponents aplenty who will say the same of the DEA, and I don’t entirely disagree with them.

And I won’t even mention the IRS (until after April 15).