Property rights and the lack thereof

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I would agree in great part with ERC's post above, but for one thing: Property is neither an innate right nor is it one that can exist other than as man made and "given" by  an agency, unless we are talking of the fur on our back - and even then. Communal property in families, tribes, society as a whole or feudal ownership of area have existed (and in some cases continue to do so) since the dawn of time. It is only in capitalism that this notion is required for society's working but it then arises from an agency that "records" it and makes it "opposable" to others.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In so far as rights are concerned I take John Locke as my guide for life, liberty and property, in Two Treatises on Government (1689) (2.31, 2), controversial though his right to property (or "estate") may be. For privacy I take Brandeis and Warren in their Harvard Law Review article published in 1890.

I know that few countries, beyond Singapore, expressly and diligently defend property rights ... that's a shame because I believe that Locke was, still is, right and most of the world has it all back-asswards.

Edit: format

 

[Loachman]

So, OGBD, that shiney new car that you just paid cash for is not yours?

Okay - then I can borrow it at any time that I wish?

Awfully generous of you, old boy...

I think that even the earliest human hunters understood the notion of property.
Og's kill was Og's. Thag, nowhere near when the animal was skilfully speared, would have no legitimate claim and Og would enforce that.

Animals will also defend their kills, and their lairs, from rivals too lazy to hunt or build for themselves.

Property is a pretty basic concept.

What's mine is not yours, beyond what I choose to share with you, unless you take it by force.

Now, where do you kep your keys, again?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, OGBD, that shiney new car that you just paid cash for is not yours?

Okay - then I can borrow it at any time that I wish?

Awfully generous of you, old boy...

I think that even the earliest human hunters understood the notion of property.
Og's kill was Og's. Thag, nowhere near when the animal was skilfully speared, would have no legitimate claim and Og would enforce that.

Animals will also defend their kills, and their lairs, from rivals too lazy to hunt or build for themselves.

Property is a pretty basic concept.

What's mine is not yours, beyond what I choose to share with you, unless you take it by force.

Now, where do you kep your keys, again?

Property rights are not enshrined in the Charter. The government will take whatever they want. Sometimes they'll compensate, i.e - expropriation of land. Sometimes they won't, i.e. - confiscation of certain firearms.

You can take them to court, however the government seldom loses.

The Conservatives have put forth motions previously to correct this. However, the provinces, the liberals and the NDP do not agree with the individuals right to enjoyment of property

 

[Privateer]

Property rights are not enshrined in the Charter. The government will take whatever they want. Sometimes they'll compensate, i.e - expropriation of land. Sometimes they won't, i.e. - confiscation of certain firearms.

You can take them to court, however the government seldom loses.

The Conservatives have put forth motions previously to correct this. However, the provinces, the liberals and the NDP do not agree with the individuals right to enjoyment of property

I think that you will find that the government of the day, of any political stripe, will find occasions where (in it's view) the collective need of the nation outweighs private property interests.  Witness the ongoing controversy over the Conservative government's expropriation of "Frank Meyer's Farm" to provide DND with land for an expansion of CFB Trenton, eg. http://globalnews.ca/news/1081496/frank-meyers-expropriated-farm-hosts-rally-third-day-in-a-row/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think that you will find that the government of the day, of any political stripe, will find occasions where (in it's view) the collective need of the nation outweighs private property interests.  Witness the ongoing controversy over the Conservative government's expropriation of "Frank Meyer's Farm" to provide DND with land for an expansion of CFB Trenton, eg. http://globalnews.ca/news/1081496/frank-meyers-expropriated-farm-hosts-rally-third-day-in-a-row/

If the need is there and the Charter hasn't changed, the government can still work within the current framework.

At least they have advocated to change it, but until it is, they can use it. The other parties mentioned don't want property rights given to citizens period.

Another P Trudeau legacy that his son won't fix.

 

[The_Falcon]

I split this off from the York  U thread, as it is an interesting discussion in it's own right.

Carry on.

 

[Privateer]

If the need is there and the Charter hasn't changed, the government can still work within the current framework.

At least they have advocated to change it, but until it is, they can use it. The other parties mentioned don't want property rights given to citizens period.

Assuming that the Conservatives actually do want to change this, it strikes me as being worse to say that they want to change it, but will use it nevertheless, than a different party using it because they actually agree with it.

Another P Trudeau legacy that his son won't fix.

In fairness, P.E.T. did not make any change to the status of property.  He left the position as the Supreme Court of Canada determined it in Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. The Queen (1978), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101.  Rather, P.E.T. and the Provincial premiers involved in negotiating the Charter declined to change the law to create a new constitutional right to property.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that you will find that the government of the day, of any political stripe, will find occasions where (in it's view) the collective need of the nation outweighs private property interests.  Witness the ongoing controversy over the Conservative government's expropriation of "Frank Meyer's Farm" to provide DND with land for an expansion of CFB Trenton, eg. http://globalnews.ca/news/1081496/frank-meyers-expropriated-farm-hosts-rally-third-day-in-a-row/

Even when the government expropriates property it is required to supply fair compensation.... the fly in the ointment is who decides what is fair.

Property is property.  Held by the individual with possession being 9/Tenths of the law.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Even when the government expropriates property it is required to supply fair compensation.... the fly in the ointment is who decides what is fair.

Property is property.  Held by the individual with possession being 9/Tenths of the law.

For land yes.

The government (RCMP) has changed the classification of various firearms, at times, making them illegal to own. They then seized them with no compensation. There has been, however, times that they tried this that the Minister of Justice told the RCMP to pay the owners fair market value for the guns they seized but that is not the norm.

Property is NOT property.

So it's not a once size fits all statement to say you're compensated, fairly or not, for everything the government takes from you.

Simply, because it's not true.

 

[Daidalous]

I found this on the evil WIKI. 

In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to "be made whole" by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.

If I remember correctly the government hired a 3rd party firm to determine the market value.