When it comes to anti-war pieces and matters of the US government overstepping its bounds in matters of privacy and security, The Intercept is usually spot on.
On matters of social justice, The Intercept puts out some nauseating trash.
Intercept writer Zaid Jilani provides a perfect example with JEREMY CORBYN WANTS TO REQUISITION HOMES OF THE RICH FOR FIRE SURVIVORS — LIKE CHURCHILL DID IN WWII.
BRITISH LABOUR PARTY leader Jeremy Corbyn has a bold proposal to house the survivors of a devastating fire at London’s Grenfell Tower apartment complex in empty luxury homes.
YouGov polling found that Corbyn’s idea is popular among the British public, with 59 percent supporting it. Yet there has been a harsh backlash from the U.K.’s right-wing government and press, which equated his plan with a Marxist plot. “Suggesting requisitioning empty properties when empty student accommodation is available locally is completely in line with his Marxist belief that all private property should belong to the state,” Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said.
But Corbyn’s plan has historical roots not in Marxist literature or state-run economies, but in his country’s own past.
To help bear the brunt of the Nazi war machine, the British government requisitioned both industrial and residential properties to accommodate soldiers and evacuees, run makeshift schools and hospitals, and train the military, among other uses.
All Corbyn is asking is that the the United Kingdom show the same compassion and patriotism as its forefathers.
Compassion My Ass
Even if one believes that confiscation of property is acceptable in wartime (try telling that to the Jews or US citizens of Japanese descent), does that make it OK now?
Confiscation of private property “for the greater good” is an even bigger government intrusion than spying on people.
Jilani’s article is so idiotic, it should be his last, anywhere.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
1. Confiscate Jeremy Corbyn’s home and give it to the fire victims. Progressives/liberals always take other people’s stuff – never give away their own stuff to help the poor.
2. “Rich” to progressives/liberals is always subject to change and they will always lower the bar as their “confiscation of the wealth to buy votes” schemes fail. Until you eventually define “rich” as someone in the lower middle class (as we do today in America).
3. Next, progressives/liberals will invoke Jesus and say they are doing God’s work. They never even have cracked open a Bible but are quite sure Jesus was a socialist.
“Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
2 Corinthians 9:7
JK Rowling has been a very vocal supporter of allowing the hordes of Middle Eastern immigrants in and castigating anyone with a contrary opinion via her usual conduit, Twitter. In the meanwhile she lives in a handsome home in Scotland with lots of land and a mock up fantasy group of dwellings on her land capable of housing several people but has thus far declined to house any of the immigrants she demands that the plebs pay to keep, instead and protects her privacy jealously. When you’re rich and famous you are free to be a massive hypocrite just so long as your message is ‘progressive’, of course.
1. First off, Corbyn is not talking about housing people in places that other people are living in. He is talking about unoccupied properties owned by real-estate speculators. So there goes that argument of yours!
2. “Rich” is clearly defined to be the 1%, for instance, Or even the top 0.1% Don’t know of anyone in the lower middle class being in the top 0.1% or 1%. Do you? Two down.
3. God may love a cheerful giver. But the people at the bottom really don’t mind if the giver is a little bit morose! LOL Asking for a “cheerful giver” is like asking for an oasis on the moon.
i guess 800$ billion in private charity annually comes from martians. Every unoccupied property is a speculator? Are you sure? You don’t care, do you?
Much of that private charity money goes to pay for concert halls, museums, junkets, trinkets for the rich, not to mention fat salaries for the people running those charities. It is estimated that less than 12% of the amount goes to actual poverty alleviation programs.
No, not every unoccupied property belongs to a speculator. Councils maintain databases about the properties. So, it would be easy to see what is a speculation and what is merely an inheritance that the heirs are not sure what to do about or have no means to repair etc
Vennasuala is the place you need to be.
And Somalia is the place YOU need to be in! What’s not to like? No regulations, no laws and no government (and even if there is a government, it is small enough to be drowned in a shot glass).
Also, no taxes either (at least until some warlord shows up and levies a 100% wealth tax on you, and adds a death penalty on top of that! 😀
Maybe he thinks he is Robin Hood.
Easier to tax the bejesus out of them
“for the greater good”
Ah, yes, the ‘greater good of all’ – aka ‘public interest’, ‘public good’, ‘national interest’, ‘common good’, ‘the masses’, etc., etc, etc. Who can define it?
Those who try include everyone from advocates for military conscription to eminent domain to those who might require that the elderly drink hemlock because they are on the way out anyway an using up resources. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Churchill all supported the concept – with deadly results.
There is no such thing as the ‘public interest’ – the public is not a person; just a label for a collection of individuals each having different values and interests. The only interest each of us has in common is self preservation and the desire to flourish with his own friends and family above all others.
Socialism will destroy England just like it destroyed France and Venezuela and Africa and …
The national socialist party in Germany (the nazi party) had exactly the same ideas, and that worked out great too.
Thatcherism and Reaganomics has what has destroyed UK (and the US). The chickens are coming home to roost now.
Don’t forget ‘The Children’…
Well, will they have to mow the lawn and water the garden?
details details …. where are the details??…
Back in the day when I was driving my small children around and we would occasionally see a beautiful large mansion estate for sale.
They kids would ask “Dad, why don’t you buy it? It would be so cool!”
“Kids, even if they gave me that house for free. Between the taxes, utilities, landscaping, insurance, furnishings and general upkeep, I could not afford it and would we be bankrupt in a few years.”
And I have a pretty decent middle class job.
Now Jeremy Corbyn wants to give people who were living in government subsidized housing projects empty luxury homes…
What could go wrong…?
You must have known my father. He told me when I was young that a big house just means a bigger mortgage, bigger utility bills, higher taxes and insurance, and more work cleaning. It might make you look richer, but you’re actually poorer. So I never even thought about getting a big house though I could certainly afford one.
Let see, because England reacted in a certain way when being relentlessly bombed every night, they should have the same reaction to a single apartment building burning down. Makes perfect sense.
How many dozens of government building inspectors signed off on using napalm insulation around the refrigerator electronics, and firebricks for exterior clapboards?
Apparently the real estate developer cut a lot of corners, but each and every short cut was inspected and approved by a government employee
Your first comment I agree 100% with Medex. They should find every building official who signed off on this thing along with the developer and string them all up. Murderers all. Society fails when criminals are not help accountable. That’s the biggest difference between the 1st and 3rd worlds.
Deregulation means a lot of the rules are relaxed, or even erased. There is not much a government employee can object to in that case. Besides, regulatory capture would have ensured that even that employee is on the side of the developer. Blame our government-for-sale election financing system for that.
Wrong! If the Brits could deal with such a major incident as dozens of bombed buildings, surely they should be able to deal with a single building fire. That they are not able/willing to do the same thing on a much much smaller scale speaks volumes. That is what Corbyn is drawing attention to.
Wasn’t one of the Intercept’s failed reporters recently found guilty of all those bomb threats on Jewish schools? Juan Thompson is his name.
Granted. Stupid idea, but it is also stupid/criminal to give public monies to rehab private property belonging to members of Parliament and their rich friends.
EMPTY properties. All this indignation has skipped an important modifier. If the scheme is temporary, the owners won’t mind because they would never know … assuming “Indian” usage [leave no trail].
Agreed, important modifier. And the government should not “requisition” the property. The government should politely ask the owners for charitable donations in this time of need, giving them an opportunity to remove any valuables. With the understanding that those who refuse will be subject to public shaming.
Lol, I can see the precedent being set already. Incidents of arson would go through the roof. Anyone living in a run-down apartment or council house would torch it purposely and then go running to the government demanding to be put up in a nearby “luxury” house
Seems that now governments are far down the road with their implementation of the twin dystopias of A Brave New World and 1984 they have now decided to add Atlas Shrugged as some icing on the crazy cake
A number of the properties are owned by foreign nationals using them as a piggy bank to shelter and diversify wealth. Doesn’t excuse seizure but explains why some are empty.
In time of war, in time of emergency we often tolerate such government actions because the “common good” is at stake. But there is no wartime, no emergency, no threat the the “common good”. The threat to the elimination of private property is a threat to the common good of nation. If the government does not wish to respect private property then slavery cannot be far behind. If only one apartment had burned and those occupants dislocated, would Corbyn have demanded that one luxury property owner be inconvenienced? I think not. why should the many be a special case? I think putting them up in tone or two star hotels would be the cheaper alternative. But why bother with logic, surely no labor leader would concern himself with such balderdash.
I agree, it is nonsense. However here is some food for thought regarding government confiscxation of property for good of the country. In the U.K. Somehow they have successfully stopped development of shoreline property around their entire coast line, including Scotland. You can actually walk by means of a maintained trail system completely around both England and Scotland without coming into contact with barb wire or luxury hotels as the coastal views are everyone to enjoy. The trails also crisscross the entire inland too. As it is illegal to stop access on property to those rambling across the countryside. Groups like “Ramblers” volunteer to help maintain the trails, keep them open and walkable, and they also creat “step over’s” that assist a person crossing one piece of fenced or rock or hedge barrier to the next property. I found it amazing along the Coast of Penzance and Wales and the Lakes area hiking the coast pub to pub.
Another much-ado-about-nothing that would be a complete nonevent, were it not for idiotic zoning laws and development restrictions. Take those away, and something as cheap and trivial to slap together as a roof over ones head, would be sitting there for the taking, for anyone who felt they had a need for it. But of course, as usual, the government messing up one thing, is exactly the excuse they need for barging into other areas to mess up.
Not really that different from Adverse possession Mish, just faster.
Give Corby a break. He and his ilk are the future of Britain as soon as the millennial snowflakes take power.
Politicians love to “Take From The Rich” and “Give To The Poor” if the votes gained guarantee re-election for another term.
Of course there will be negative long-term side-effects, but these are problems for the next election cycle.
The only Math politicians understand is how to count votes.
Bad example – the Nazi Invasion never happened but the Muzzie Invasion is in full swing.
Diversity means chasing down the last White person: now to confiscate their property for some ‘greater good’
This incident is right out of the Camp of the Saints. ITs obscene
that reporter should not be allowed to be called a “reporter”. He’s just another idiot with a liberal arts degree.
another quote from him:
Even after the debates, the public is still wondering if Trump is for real. The answer, sadly, is a resounding yes
no agenda there.
The entire piece is dishonest. The analogy Corbyn gave was how hundreds of airplane passengers are given accommodations in the event of flight delays. Nobody thinks those airline passengers will permanently live in those hotel rooms!
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
The last time the Britishgovernment imposed forced housing for strangers (British troops) on civilians it caused a revolution with thousands killed and the creation of a new country. I doubt the current subjects will have the testicular fortitude to repeat history.
Would this have happened without Corbyn’s demand?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sixtyeight-flats-in-2bn-luxury-block-to-be-given-to-families-whose-lives-were-devastated-in-grenfell-a3569876.html
Amazing, even the 3rd Amendment is still needed!
A mere hop, skip and a jump towards eminent domain laws.
After an entire career spent in property development, President Trump should warm up quickly to the idea of eminent domain.
The government here in America has also taking the road of removing the rights of those owning property. We as a society create problems when we try to deny that many people go through life making their own problems and then allow the government to sidestep the issue by pawning the problem off on the private sector. An eviction on someone’s record usually means they become ineligible for government housing programs.
By making them “ineligible” for certain programs the government shrewdly and cleverly sidesteps having to deal with these people. The brutal truth is that government housing cherry-picks the best of the low-income renters providing them with very low rents and nice apartments while dumping the rest on the private sector. This drives up rental prices on everyone else. More on this subject and other issues concerning housing in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/04/housing-policy-heaps-misery-on-private.html
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/0977956318
Reblogged this on sentinelblog.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..