Our revolution and separation from King George was based on the premise that the government does not have the right to appropriate property of its citizens to use for whatever purposes it chooses, unless those citizens or their representatives agree to the idea.  Continued expansion of government for the welfare of humanity was viewed as something that would impose such a tax burden on the citizenry that it would “eat out their substance”.  Which is the same thing that Cloward and Piven opined.  Except they were for it.


There is no inherent right of the government to redistribute wealth.


For those citizens that differ and would like to have their own property redistributed, I understand that they take checks.  They might even name a skateboard park or turtle tunnel after you.

About drrik

3rd career and 2nd childhood. Spends spare time repairing old things. Aspires to burn more gasoline, gunpowder, and ink in pursuit of slowing down. Child of the 60s and aspiring student of history. No desire to see us repeat the failed social experiments that keep failing for lack of human beings that meet the left wing standards and have to be killed off. Did engineering long enough to realize that very little is new and the wheel does not need to be reinvented.
This entry was posted in constitutional, socialism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Justified

  1. Mrs. AL says:

    Sadly, Drrik, the Cloward-Piven crowd et al are the walking definition of hyprocracy. Nary a one of these pine cones offers him/herself as a “living example” of the way they want this thing to play out. If there are such people, please advise and I will amend my perception accordingly.

  2. drrik says:

    Socialism is not for the socialists. Its for thee and me.

  3. thedrpete says:

    Give me liberty or give me . . . liberty. Period. Next?

  4. drrik says:

    Liberty is never given. It is only given away.

  5. CW says:

    The Drikk Doctrine:
    “There is no inherent right of the government to redistribute wealth.”

    Now, if we just had some way of enforcing the Drikk Doctrine!

  6. drrik says:

    There is no inherent right of the Supreme Court to be the only arbiter of what is constitutional.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s