A+ A A-

If you don't like what Hathaway House owner is doing, buy it

To The Daily Sun,

I dryly note that progressives became so hated during the last century, they needed to rebrand themselves. They chose "Liberal" to next redefine and abuse. But their intent was not to elevate Classic Western Liberalism that emphasized the individual and rights granted by God but the regressive idea that the individual should be subservient to the collective which would grant (and therefore, could revoke) those rights, which otherwise should be held inviolate, including the right to private property. And as we know, they blew that word up and have retreated to the original word, progressive. Either way, I call them incremental socialists.

The Hathaway House situation in Laconia provides us with yet another GRAND example of people absconding with a word's original meaning: "stakeholder". Previously viewed as simply a person that held the stakes for erecting a tent or a fence, they have redefined its usage by involving themselves into "the process" as "interested and involved citizens". At the national and international level, they are generally known as Non-Governmental Organizations. Think of the EPA, its royal decrees (void of legislation) — and the environmental groups that insert themselves and "advise" on policy. Even though they have no ownership interest in property whose value may well be diminished, they have no problem in helping to promulgate regulations that diminishes the rights of the owners to use that property. They call themselves "advocates" — we used to call these people busybodies.

"Stakeholders" exist locally as well and have decided this building must be saved 'for posterity" and "historical purposes" — but put the entire financial burden upon the property owner and none on themselves. In other words, people like Pam Clark and Dorothy Duffy show a lack of respect of the right to private property (oft said that if we did not have such a right, we would not have freedom either as the Declaration of Independence was first drafted as "the Pursuit of Property"). They seem intent, in their communitarian-styled letters, to want to effectively deny the owner the use (or destruction) of their own property. One could consider this "theft without actual taking", for if control is taken away, what is the good of ownership?

They also have no problem in "hurting the little people" with their boycott call — the employees. Nice to see these communitarians are willing to up the local unemployment rate. Tell you what, Ms. Clark and Ms. Duffy — if you don't like what the owner is doing, reach into your own collective pockets and buy it. And perform the maintenance that you are screaming about if it is that important to you.

For then, you'd stop being busybodies and be property owners. Maybe.

Skip Murphy

Gilford

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN