---- The "right" to more than your share ...

 

In response to my question, "why do some people believe there is a 'natural right' to owning any and all property?", Mr Lefebvre defends unrestricted private property -- because he says it is "natural".  Canada's constitution specifically does not make it a right, but Mr Lefebvre insists the Constitution is wrong, and wealth "should be" a right, despite its destructive effects in generation after generation. He introduces the Bible, I suppose, because of his own personal beliefs, despite , he claims, its being "soft on slavery". (Who still appeals to the Bible -- or Koran -- for legal, or any sort of, opinion?)

 

Mr Lefebvre views property as "useless" unless it can be "defended". Perhaps he believes the Bible also gives him the right to carry assault weapons?   Property is a legal concept, hence it is the result not of "natural" toddlers' actions, as he insists, but of a legal system, which is the result of a community legislating in its own best interests. Lefebvre says this means "the individual"  has no control over his life. Good grief, sir

Mr Lefebvre's reply contains more of such silly last-century claims -- such as that our Constitution was written by "collectivists" who wished to "supplant private property".

Most working people accept, despite the wealthy who feel they have a right to everything they can grab, ownership restrictions and property taxation. They hide their wealth in tax havens outside the reach of our government. They have lawyers and accountants who protect them from laws forcing them to share.  Mr Lefebvre's naive view that the wealthy "... do accept, many laws, rules and regulations that States impose upon them", is clearly exaggerated.

As for male toddlers teaching Mr Lefebvre about social obligations, do they also teach him that bashing each other is "natural" -- and thus a good?  The Bulletin should raise the bar on what it will print!

Rosei Ya

Aylmer