Virginia’s New Slavery


S

lavery in Virginia may be taking a new form — that of human trafficking.

Some 18,000 people, mostly foreign born women, are victim of the practice in the U.S. each year, according to the U.S. State Department. And while local data is hard to find, there is evidence that Virginia is becoming a haven for the trade of tricking or forcing people to come to the U.S. and having them work in servitude or prostitution.
The situation is exacerbated because Maryland and the District of Columbia have cracked down, forcing the trade south of the Potomac, according to U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, a Northern Virginia Republican who is calling for a task force to deal with it. He met with State Police, members of the state attorney general’s office, the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus on the problem in late April.
Wolf points out that trafficking can involve native-born Americans such as teen aged girls who runaway from home and end up in a prostitution ring. Most of the time it involves Latino women from Central American who respond to ads offering immigration papers and money in exchange for work at “erotic” clubs. Sometimes they involve Asians, such as a group from South Korea that flew to the U.S. with phony papers and worked up and down the East Coast in massage parlors.
Working with Kimberly Mehlman, a doctoral student in criminology at George Mason University, I tracked down some of the ads. Kim had come up with ads on the Web looking for women from Guatemala, Honduras and other Central Americans to work at “men’s” clubs in South Richmond. The ads promised money, legal immigration help and “NO JOKES!” We traced the address listed in the ad to a tiny, white-washed, cinderblock house in a lower income residential neighborhood. Kim asked a Spanish-speaking woman to call the number listed, but they were disconnected. When Kim called the Richmond police, they took little interest.
Neither does Chesterfield County or the State Police, which told me that they don’t track trafficking.
That’s odd because Maryland and D.C. do. The legislature in Annapolis just passed laws toughening penalties and requiring hotels where prostitution occurs to post hotline numbers. D.C. has a task force as does the Montgomery County Police Department.
Wolf wants to raise awareness of the problem with a task force that he helped create a few years ago to weed out organized youth gangs in Northern Virginia.
Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli’s office say they are on board with Wolf. But somehow, the “Cooch” seems behind the curve on this one.
Too bad, it seems like such a natural for him — law enforcement, immigration, morality, sex. I guess he’s too busy chasing down Dr. Mann’s research, covering up the state seal’s exposed nipple or keeping public universities safe from homosexuals.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

92 responses to “Virginia’s New Slavery”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    undocumented workers exploited by unscrupulous employers also are essentially in bondage…

    what would be sweet would be for the undocumented to unionize and work to expose these employers.

    too bad that most hispanics are not particularly activists in their basic nature and are just trying to make a living for their families.

    I bet if the U.S. offered 40K plus amnesty to any undocumented that reported the employer that all heck would break lose.

  2. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "According to the U.S. State Department, as many as 2 million people a year, including up to 18,000 in this country, are bought, sold or smuggled for jobs ranging from prostitution to exotic dancing to housekeeping. Profits run $9 billion a year.".

    18,000 / $9B = $500,000 per person per year.

    This sounds like a heinous situation but I'm not sure I quite get the math.

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli's office say they are on board with Wolf. But somehow, the "Cooch" seems behind the curve on this one.

    Too bad, it seems like such a natural for him — law enforcement, immigration, morality, sex. I guess he's too busy chasing down Dr. Mann's research, covering up the state seal's exposed nipple or keeping public universities safe from homosexuals.".

    Do the police work for the attorney general? Do the Richmond police report to Cuccinelli?

    Or, are these the responsibilities of the Virginia Attorney General:

    Providing legal advice and representation in court for the Governor and the state government in general

    Providing legal advice, official opinions, to members of the Virginia General Assembly and local government officials

    Defending the state in cases of criminal appeals and suits against the state

    Defending the constitutionality of state laws

    Collecting money owed to various state institutions

    Peter, I am very happy to read your endorsement of increasing Cuccinelli's power to include direct law enforcement. Perhaps you'd support transferring the Virginia State Police from the Cabinet Secretariat of Public Safety to the Attorney General's Office?

    Cuccinelli Derangement Syndrome (CDS) is a terrible malady.

  4. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Groveton,
    If so, why did Frank Wolf invite Cooch's people to his meeting about a human trafficking task force? Maybe you'd like to lecture him about the limits of the Atty. Gen's office just as you like to share your unique views on academic freedom.
    Your little Chihuahua teeth are sinking in my ankle.

    Peter Galuszka

  5. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "If so, why did Frank Wolf invite Cooch's people to his meeting about a human trafficking task force?"

    Because Wolf recognizes Cuccinelli's obvious knowledge of the US Constitution based on his brilliant suit to reverse the excesses of ObamaCare? I think it would be a good idea for all US congressmen to ask the Virginia Attorney General for permission before writing US law.

    Or, it was a good grandstanding opportunity for Wolf as he contemplates his need to get re-elected this November. Because, you see, Cuccinelli is actually very popular with many Virginians. Just about as popular as Obama is unpopular.

    "Your little Chihuahua teeth are sinking in my ankle.".

    Good. I have rabies. Oh wait, that's not true. You're a liberal so you foam at the mouth naturally.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Having Peter & Groveton both posting has been great. The blog is being updated more often and the topics are more edgy, but still quite thought-provoking. We have our own Hannity and Colmes.

    Keep up the good work.

    TMT

  7. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Peter,
    Sorry, I am writing this comment knowing it is off-topic to this post, and I apologize to you for that. But apparently liberals are not the only ones, who, according to Groveton, have "consistency" issues. Cuccinelli cherry-picks his support of free speech as well. It's not a priority when applied to educators and researchers. But crazy, whacked-out hate groups, yes. Citing free speech, Cuccinelli has announced he will not join 48 other states in filing a supporting legal brief on behalf of Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral service in Maryland was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas, a hate group who shows up at funerals shouting, "Your son was gay–and that's why he was killed!" in the face of family and friends' fresh grief.
    Cuccinelli’s office chose not to file a brief “because the case could set a precedent that could severely curtail certain valid exercises of free speech.”
    Free speech does have limits. That's why it's illegal to stand up in a movie theater and yell "fire" as a joke. And Virginia has a law that balances free-speech rights but also protects people like the Snyder family by making it a crime to “willfully disrupt a funeral or memorial service to the point of preventing or interfering with the orderly conduct of the event.” But Cuccinelli didn't choose to enforce or honor that law.
    I understand that free speech, even of crackpots, has to be protected. But I'm finding it increasingly difficult to comprehend the issues and alliances with which the VA AG chooses to involve himself.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/cuccinelli_says_military_funer.html?wprss=virginiapolitics

  8. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Maybe Cuccinelli could make it up to veterans for his lack of support in the Snyder case by using his office to start looking into the man who provided almost 3 percent–$55,000–of his total campaign haul last year–claiming to be a Navy Vet's org–and has since been found to be a total scammer, (allegedly) and is under investigation by three states. But not yet in Virginia.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mimi, I'm glad you were not a founding mother of this country. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    It protects the repulsive. Absent obscenity, a threat to imminent danger (as you correctly noted "yelling fire in a theater") and the right to regulate commercial speech, the courts have rejected limits on free speech. The Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois. Anti-war protesters have the right to burn the Flag or wear black arm patches to high school. Illegal aliens can protest Arizona's new statute.

    Physical disruption is not free speech and can be prohibited. But you and I can say and write whatever we want.

    TMT

  10. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    TMT,
    The Westboro Baptist Church (not rally Baptist) is a bunch of screwy hatemongers who get very personal by picketng the funerals of men and women who died fightingin Iraq and Afghanistan. By doing so, they annoy and harrass families at a moment of painful grief. The First Amendment does not give them the right to do so. If the funerals werte on private land, they could have these bozos evicted by force.
    Trying to tout the Constitution in this case is lame as can be.They can always write a letter to the editor but to publicly humiliate the survivors is just plain tacky.

    Peter Galuszka

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I agree with Mimi and Peter. Free speech has limits. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. I don't think you should be allowed to disrupt the funeral of a serviceman or servicewoman either.

    However, I can see how Ken Cuccinelli or TMT might be disgusted by the behavior yet feel it is covered by the first amendment. Some would say that picketing a funeral does not create a public safety problem like yelling "fire" in a theater. I would disagree. If I were a member of a serviceman's family and the funeral was disrupted the disrupters would find themselves in the middle of a very serious public safety problem. No doubt I'd be arrested. I'd take my chances with a jury. I'd say that these protests create an incitement to riot. So, I see them as a public safety issue.

    However, with regard to Cuccinelli – he is obviously not pandering to slack jawed conservatives like me. His ecision not to join the other 48 attorneys general will will him no friends in "the base". I also doubt he'll convince many ACLU members to start supporting him.

    He must just think it's the right thing to do – legally speaking.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree wholeheartedly with everyone that this conduct at military funerals is disgusting and repulsive. It sickens my stomach. If I saw such conduct, I suspect my temper would get the best of me and I would exercise some of my own First Amendment rights in a way that would offend the church members and probably some other people.

    I would also draw the line at physical disruption, etc. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Just as it is constitutional for some to speak in favor of gay marriage, it is equally constitutional to advocate that gays must repent or go to hell. Both types of speech truly upset people, but they are both protected under the First Amendment. The best remedy for repulsive speech protected by the First Amendment is more free speech.

    And Groveton, the National Nazi League aka the ACLU, won't support Cuccinelli. It long since abandoned its role as a protector of civil liberties and became just one more left-wing interest group, IMO. More free speech.

    TMT

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – you need to stop listening to the right wing "nuts" on the ACLU and look at some facts:

    http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

    the truth is that the ACLU defends ALL free speech and that if the right wing had their way, they'd restrict what they did not like and allow what they like – with no rhyme or reason except what hews to their ideology.

    Demonizing the ACLU is a disservice to all of us IMHO.

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    TMT –

    I agree that the ACLU will not make any campaign contributions to Mr. Cuccinelli. That's kind of my point. He probably upset his base of support by refusing to join the other 48 AGs. He's never going to get support from most people on the left. So, he did himself no favors with this decision.

    I guess that means he does what he thinks is right rather than what will give him a political advantage.

    Good for him – even when he is wrong.

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I guess that means he does what he thinks is right rather than what will give him a political advantage"

    uhuh…

    so.. tell me again why he ran for office?

    isn't this the basic problem with the right wing?

    they want to get into office and then do what THEY THINK is right?

    this is why I say "rule" rather than "govern".

    and the whole idea rests on the premise that people will be too dumb to understand that the guy running for office has no intention to represent THEIR interests but those of his own that he thinks is "right".

    then… in a huge act of irony – we have the Tea Pots running on the platform that "Washington does not listen".

    uhuh…

    so… the Tea Pots like Cucci and want more like him..

    uhuh…

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Of course much of this could all be fixed by legalizing prostitution.

    RH

  17. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    RH,
    There's an argument out there to legalize. Some claim it actually decreases crime and disease. But I wouldn't know. Groveton has been to Amsterdam. I haven't

    PG

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Aside from Amsterdam, prostitution is legal in much of Europe including England, France, Wales, Denmark, and Germany. Also Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand.

    Hmm, Groveton travels a lot. [Obvious logical fallacy here.]

    It is a property rights issue. Once we decide what property is and agree to protect it we will all be safer and more secure, not just prostitutes.

    RH

  19. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    prostitution is property rights?

    are pimps property owners?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What does and actor, or an athlete, or a laborer sell?

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Pimps are not property owners because it is illegal to own another person.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Isn't this similar to why other illegal workers are exploited, because we make them illegal?

    Otherwise, when someone hires an illegal worker, it is by joint consent. They are illegal becaus we make it so. There is no harm to anyone else except they work cheaper, and it isn't clear that they would charge more if they were legal, however, they might have more options and more freedom.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Brogdon said that he was not aware of any Oklahoma statutes that required comprehensive planning, and that he would not be in favor of a law that did, because land regulations lead to property rights abuses. He believes that our current zoning codes, and even homeowner association covenants, are not constitutional. He emphasized that new codes, such as you would find with New Urbanism or form-based codes, are not constitutional because they take away a person’s right to do with their property as they see fit.

    He also described land use regulations as a bait-and-switch routine that is used to promote urbanism and light rail."

    Randy Brogon is running for Governor in Oklahoma.

    We've got plenty of other things in Virginia that effectively amount to slavery, and affect a lot more people.

    Maybe Cucinelli can work on them.

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    HOAs are "unconstitutional"?

  25. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I think I have a solution to the illegal immigration problem.

    it's pretty elegant.

    We pay an illegal $40,000 to turn in an employer.

    We promptly deport the illegal and his family.

    We fine the employer $40,000 for every illegal alien that steps forward and we give them $40K each and deport them.

    If an illegal has a 'friend' working for another employer – he and his friend "split" the finder fee.

    This is a win-win. Jobs for illegals will evaporate and the ones that don't will get fined.

    40K will go a long way back in Mexico.

    The illegals could probably buy a house and then just find work for the other necessities.

    The 40K would then spur the Mexican economy like home buying does here.

    work for plumbers, electricians, rugs and appliances.. etc.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    HOAs are "unconstitutional"?

    I didn't say that. An HOA is a contract that you sign before you buy the proerty.

    Anything the HOA does subsequently to reduce the value of your property should be compensable. If it is not, then THAT ACTION ought to be unconstitutional.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "We fine the employer $40,000 for every illegal alien that steps forward and we give them $40K each and deport them."

    That should move the employers to Mexico petty fast.

    RH

  28. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    what if the HOA has a clause to that effect – you know.. in the "small print"?

    I think it would be a tough job to successfully sue the HOA on a reduction in value of your property anyhow as most HOAs have rules that, in theory, PROTECT the value of your property … that's what the purpose of most of their rules are and that is the attraction of most folks who want to live in an HOA-governed development.

    no junk cars on blocks, no dogs running lose, no strange looking paint or fences, etc.

  29. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    move the employers to Mexico?

    oh you mean the landscapers, roofers and restaurants and meat packing plants?

    ha ha ha

    nope.

    Maybe the fruit and vegetable business… as the price of American-grown tomatoes goes to 5 times the price of Mexican-grown.

    But that would be a good thing for Mexico.

    Their folks would have jobs at home… and economic opportunity – right?

  30. Hydra Avatar

    in theory, PROTECT the value of your property …

    ==============================

    That is the theory.

    In therory, and by policy of the GAO, EVERY government regulation out to pass this test as well.

    What if you have an HOA for an uncompeted subdivsion and the HOA passes a rule that increases setbacks, meaning anyone new has to be restricted to a smaller home.

    In theory, it might make the whole subdivision look more spacious ann and valuable. On average the property is more valuable, but for those who have not built yet, their property is LESS valuable.

    They should be compensated. After compensation, if the regulation will still pass and it still makes the place more valuable, then no problem.

    However, as you and I know, the theory does not always hold, and some regulations actually reduce value.

    Like the lady who was intensly allergic to insect bites. She put up a little screen porch so she could enjoy sitting outside, but the HOA made her take it down.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Roofers and Lnadscapers.

    You mean all those jobs Americans are dying to get.

    RH

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    oh the theories hold.

    What if the HOA says that new rules like setbacks can be voted on by a majority of owners and the contract you sign agrees to that way of deciding issues?

  33. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the roofing and landscape jobs that are HERE and WON'T go to Mexico.

    I have a solution for this also.

    You allow those on welfare to take those slots and if they don't then you allow the illegals to have them.

    All the employer needs is a certification that he offered the jobs to those on welfare and they turned it down.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "no strange looking paint or fences, etc."

    Who decides what or who is strange looking? Once upon a time we had HOA's that exluded people of color.

    The point is that there are lots of kinds of slavery: meaning you get told what to do for someone else's benefit.

    I argue that to do his job most effectively, Cuccinelli should figure out how he can cure the most slavery at the lowest cost.

    Somehow, I don't think the issue of the college professor is his best choice.

    Human traficking might be egregious but near impossible to stop. Someone is going to have to make a decison how much to spend.

    Whether we don't work on it, work on it a little bit, or crack down vigorously, someone is making a dollar judgement on the value of slavery, and on the value of peoples lives..

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What if the HOA says that new rules like setbacks can be voted on by a majority of owners and the contract you sign agrees to that way of deciding issues?

    ==================================

    You cannot legislate to protect people from being idiots and siging such a document. Here, let me get in line to sign up for a plan that allows others to steal from me.

    What if I refuse to sign unless you add a paragraph that says I get compensated in case the HOA causes me loss of value?

    The only reason the HOA would NOT agree is if they plan to use that power to steal from me. This is the same reason local governments won't sign a pledge to obeythe constitution on paying for public use. They KNOW they can skirt the law and use it to steal.

    Like Cucinelli, they are using their office to promote a personal agenda, or an agenda that favors some ovver others; and it is wrong.

    If they (the HOA) does not agree to my simple amendment, it puts them in a bad light. The same bad light shines on local governments that ignore the spirit of the constitution requirement for compensation.

    As long as the theory holds, and EVERYONE is better off, I don't care what they do.

    Unfortunately, like any other theory, this one can be discarded by just one bad example, and we have plenty of bad examples.

    RH

  36. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: who decides

    If you sign a piece of paper than says a board of directors or a vote of the property owners "decides" then that is your answer.

    no?

    you get told but you have a vote.

    when the majority decides – you get told – as you agreed to when you signed up.

    it's the same basic deal that the govt gives you.. you get one vote and all of you agree to take a vote and abide by who wins the majority.

    It really sucks sometimes but the only real alternative is a dictator.

    I choose the less of the evils myself.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You allow those on welfare to take those slots

    Of the people I know who are on welfare, I would not hire most of them if you paid me to. They would be a hazard and a hindrance on the property.

    RH

  38. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the only agenda of HOAs and Democracy is how we agree to decide issues.

    Everyone gets their say.

    Everyone gets the opportunity to convince others of a "better way" ..

    and then at the end of the day – we vote.

    you cannot insist that others go by your rules or else…

    no matter how long or how loud you yell..

  39. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Of the people I know who are on welfare, I would not hire most of them if you paid me to. They would be a hazard and a hindrance on the property"

    it's okay.

    the ones that don't make it – reduce he welfare rolls.

    still an elegant solution…

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    no?

    No. Not if I don't sign.

    Especially not if I offer them a fair amendment that will allow me to sign and they refuse.

    I would walk away and tell the builder/seller he is out of hid mind – in no uncertain terms.

    If he can find enough idiots who will buy under those idiotic circumstances, then they got what they wanted.

    RH

  41. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: " Especially not if I offer them a fair amendment that will allow me to sign and they refuse."

    so if 500 other people do not agree with you that your amendment is "fair"….???

    you'r the only guy who thinks it is fair…

    then what?

    if you had your own 10000 acres and you produced everything you needed and never had to leave the property and never depended on anyone else for your needs – THEN you could call your own shots.. and be happy…

    once you leave your property – those other pesky people will get involved in your affairs, eh?

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the only agenda of HOAs and Democracy is how we agree to decide issues.

    Give me a break.

    Nobody believes that, especially not the founding fathers.

    They knew that government has an OBLIGATION to protect the minority, and that means the majority is not allowed to steal from them.

    The majority can take property, but it has to be compensated.

    The majority cannot ethically vote to steal and still claim to have a legitimate deocracy.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    so if 500 other people do not agree with you that your amendment is "fair"….???

    ==============================

    I don't care what they think is fair, or how many they are.

    They are the ones trying to get me to sign (their document), and I won't sign their document if I think it is unfair.

    They do not get to decide what is fair, no matter how many they are.

    RH

  44. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re:

    " They knew that government has an OBLIGATION to protect the minority, and that means the majority is not allowed to steal from them."

    and the majority gets to decide what the protections are and are not…

    "he majority can take property, but it has to be compensated."

    and the majority can decide what the compensation will be.

    "The majority cannot ethically vote to steal and still claim to have a legitimate deocracy."

    a "legitimate" Democracy is one in which the citizens decide issues by voting – as opposed to having a dictator.

  45. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " They do not get to decide what is fair, no matter how many they are."

    well, in fact, they do – because the Constitution says they can – as long as the rule applies to them also.

    that's the essence of Democracy.

    You vote to decide.

    and everyone is subject to the rule.

    people won't vote against their own interests.

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    if you had your own 10000 acres and you produced everything you needed and never had to leave the property and never depended on anyone else for your needs – THEN you could call your own shots.. and be happy…

    ================================

    First of all you are changing the subject becasue you see ou cannot win the HOA example.

    You are introducing a new what if.

    I already produce more of what I need than most people, but I know I always depend on others. Mostly these are businesses that compete for my business.

    HOA's think they have a monopoly on an area and don't have to compete, but I don't HAVE to live in their area. If they jump up around me to create a new one, I don't have to sign.

    Government, however is a monopoly and it governs by force: there is no paper for me to sign that says I agreed to join this government when I turned 21.

    But that government legitimizes itself by claiming to be a democracy. That democracy is neither ethical nor a legitimate democracy when it ignores its obligation to protect minorities and use the force at its disposal to steal.

    Government can force me to be a slave, to either work for them or pay thme not to. Government can force me to do a lot of things, but they cannot force me to change my decsion on what is fair.

    It is pretty simple: you want something from me, be prepared to pay me for it.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " They do not get to decide what is fair, no matter how many they are."

    well, in fact, they do – because the Constitution says they can – as long as the rule applies to them also.

    ================================

    We are still talking about the homeowners association contract here. That is not a matter of democracy, even if they pretend otherwise. It is contract law.

    They do NOT get to decide what is fair, and they do NOT get to force me to sign.

    ==============================

    What the Constitution says is that if the government wants something for public use, government has to pay for it. HOA's are not government, yet, but ethically they have the same obligation.

    When the government wanted to take over control over points of land to protect the riverfronts, Jefferson insisted they pay for the privilege.

    No matter how many people "decide" that they want something without paying for it, it is still not fair.

    They are not deciding on what is fair, thay are deciding to steal.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    as long as the rule applies to them also.

    ==========================

    You are wrong.

    it is not as long as the rule applies to them also.

    it is as long as the rule applies to them equally.

    Government can write a law that applies to us both, but it costs me money and it doesn't cost you.

    Government and the majority wrote the law to make EVERYONE better off. If you are no worse off or better off, but I am worse off, then government has FAILED in its obligation and its duty to protect minorities.

    The end result is that you are a conspirator in a theft from me. The more people who vote with you, the larger the conspiracy.

    A conspiracy is not a democratic government.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    it is as long as the rule applies to them equally.

    ===============================

    That is the crux of the problem debated in the previous post of Cucinelli and the professor. Is he applying the rules equally?

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    people won't vote against their own interests.
    ===============================

    The HOA can vote for me to sign their document until they are blue in the face. I don't have to sign.

    I offer them an amendment that says they promise not to use their power to steal from me and they won't sign it.

    That makes me suspicious of their motioves. I don't want to do business with people who think that way who think that way.

    They are likely to be crooks, and there is no reason for me to help them.

  51. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    This thread has gone from heartbreaking to kind of funny.

    On the heartbreaking side, the original article was really about kidnapping and slavery more than prostitution. Obviously, both kidnapping and slavery are about as illegal as it gets. I assume there can be no debate that the relevent law enforcement agencies should take this matter seriously. It sounds like the Richmond Police, for some unfathomable reason, are not interested in this matter.

    Prostitution is, in my opinion, a different matter. It is legal in a lot of places including parts of Nevada. There is also a "look the other way" mentality about prostitution in many other places. Personally, I can't imagine wanting to be with a prostitute – whether it's legal or not. I am happily married. Even before I was married engaging with prostitutes seemed like very risky behavior despite it being legal and government regulated in some places.

    So, no houses of ill repute for me in Amsterdam. The coffee shops however ….

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and the majority can decide what the compensation will be.

    ================================

    You just pointed out a failure in the system. One that a blue ribbon panel pointed out to VA government many years ago, but one that was never fixed.

    And actually, you are wrong, the majority does not get to decide, a panel of judges decides. Unfortunately it is the SAME panel of judes that deides to let an einent domain case go forward.

    You can, of course sue, but even in the unlikely event you win, government is not obligated to pay your legal fees. Even in the case wherethe court telss government it must pay, and even when the court then tells government it is not paying enough, even then, government stubbornly refuses to do what the Constitution says it must.

    But you are OK with that.

    RH

  53. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    There are some things which can't be signed away.

    You can't sign yourself into slavery.

    You can't sell one of your perfectly healthy kidneys even though you could probably get by with one.

    Maybe this guy from Oklahoma feels property rights are so fundamental they can't be restricted. Maybe he was referring to the Oklahoma constitution.

  54. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " First of all you are changing the subject becasue you see ou cannot win the HOA example."

    not at all.. if you don't like my example then fine.. stick with the HOA model.

    the point of my comment was that you don't totally own property in most circumstance but if you did and you were self sufficient then you'd have more say and others less say.

    Govt never said they could force you to admit what was fair.

    Govt only says that the majority decides what is fair and that decision applies to everyone.

    that's the only deal you got.

    show me another form of governance that is better.

  55. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " What the Constitution says is that if the government wants something for public use, government has to pay for it."

    and govt gets to decide what it is worth and they can force you to give it up – for what they think it is worth.

    why do you make the "pay for it" distinction if at the end of the game.. they pay you a dollar for what you think is worth 10 ?

    Are they not still "taking" your property against your will?

    If they can TAKE your property against your will – doesn't that mean they can also take property rights – as long as a majority of people agree?

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    On the heartbreaking side, the original article was really about kidnapping and slavery more than prostitution. Obviously, both kidnapping and slavery are about as illegal as it gets. I assume there can be no debate that the relevent law enforcement agencies should take this matter seriously."

    Thank you Groveton.

    Kidnapping and slavery into prostitution are facilitated by the fact that prostitution is illegal.

    There are a LOT of things we ought to take seriously, and everyone of them has a hard core of advocates who think we should spend averything we have and ore on their favorite special interest.

    No matter what we can afford, or what we might have done better.

    This week it was the spokesman on TV complaining we had 1000 skimmers on the gulf, we need 10,000 he said, we need every one in the world.

    No one is saying slavery and kidnapping are not important, but everything has to be prioritized and budgeted either by design or by default.

    I'm aware that position seems insensitive, but I know that as soon as you push too hard in ANY direction, you start hurting people in the other.

    Larry, as usual missed the point entirely. If it was up to him the majority could vote slavery back in fashion and that would be legal and ethical.

    RH

  57. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " The end result is that you are a conspirator in a theft from me. The more people who vote with you, the larger the conspiracy.

    A conspiracy is not a democratic government."

    got an example of one that does not work that way?

  58. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " They are likely to be crooks, and there is no reason for me to help them"

    Ray – they don't force you to sign.

    you put your John Henry on it on your own volition.

    they don't often change the contract to suit individuals.

    If they did that – they'd be violating the terms of the others contracts because the basic premise is that everyone has the same rules.

  59. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " And actually, you are wrong, the majority does not get to decide, a panel of judges decides. "

    judges are elected by majority vote or appointed by those elected by majority vote.

    no?

    Laws are changed by those elected by majority vote.

  60. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " even then, government stubbornly refuses to do what the Constitution says it must.

    But you are OK with that."

    I'm okay with elected or appointed judges and our legislature doing that – yes.

  61. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Maybe this guy from Oklahoma feels property rights are so fundamental they can't be restricted. Maybe he was referring to the Oklahoma constitution. "

    well..we have appointed and elected judges and an elected legislature that make these distinctions.

    the idea that the Constitution cannot be changed is laughable though.

    as long as we have to "interpret" what the "intent" was of the folks who wrote it – then are we not ourselves deciding what it REALLY says?

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If they can TAKE your property against your will – doesn't that mean they can also take property rights – as long as a majority of people agree?

    ==================================

    Property rights are property. The majority has no reason to take your property unless they will gain.

    Unless they are thieves, they have no reason not to share some of their gain with you, so that you will gain, same as them.

    THAT is a true Democracy.

    But as you point out we have to agree on what property is,so that we can democratically agree to pay for it. Markets help a lot in determining a fair price.

    Property is something that you have, you control, and you can sell. If you have the ability to score goals in the NHL you can decide not to sell (or rather rent) that ability and keep all your teeth.

    That is up to you, but a slave prostitute does not have that option, and the reason is that we do not protect her rights withthe same priority and the same money the same as we do hockey stars.

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – they don't force you to sign.

    you put your John Henry on it on your own volition.

    they don't often change the contract to suit individuals.

    =================================

    They don't force me to sign because they cannot. I won't sign it and they won;t get my JH or my HO dues, because it is not fair as written.

    I have often changed contracts that I signed, I just write in the changes and initial them before I sign.

    Often the changes are accepted.
    If they are not, then no deal.

    But the other side still does not get to decide what is fair, no matter how many they are, or how big they are.

    RH

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Larry, as usual missed the point entirely. If it was up to him the majority could vote slavery back in fashion and that would be legal and ethical."

    Actually we fought a war over that even though some knuckleheads insist it was about state's rights.

    Majority rule is the only governance that even "sort of" works.

    All the others are dismal failures.

    Yes… if a majority wants to bad thing .. it happens.

    A majority of people in this country believe a bunch of things I don't ..but that's the way we do things.

    We have a Constitution and we've made it hard to change on purpose and we have laws – also with high bars to change…

    the system works but it's way far from perfect.

    Of course your idea of perfect and my idea of perfect are also way different and the Tea Pots ideas of perfect are way different from us.

  65. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " The majority has no reason to take your property unless they will gain.

    Unless they are thieves, they have no reason not to share some of their gain with you, so that you will gain, same as them.

    THAT is a true Democracy."

    how do you resolve disputes over property?

    The government owns any all all property it deems essentially to it's interests – an that includes property rights.

    one would presume that in voting to take away your rights that those same folks could also lose the same rights or other rights – in a similar process.

    Most people are not going to agree to a process that will cost them their rights unless they fear that others using those rights will end up harming them.

    In the end, if enough people believe that some property right is more harmful to most folks, then they'll give up that right in order to be protected from others.

    That's the essence of an HOA, guy.

  66. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I have often changed contracts that I signed, I just write in the changes and initial them before I sign.

    Often the changes are accepted.
    If they are not, then no deal."

    How would you do that with an HOA?

    You get to fly a flag because you demanded it and the guy next door does not?

    The guy next door gets to put his car on blocks for 3 years and you do not because he insisted on it in his contract?

    how does that work Ray?

  67. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How would you do that with an HOA?

    I would not sign and I would not buy property there. When enough people walk away from a home sale because of the HOA, the rules will get changed.

    And they would not even have to be a majority. Money talks.

    RH

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "how does that work Ray?"

    It works a lot better once you undertand you do not control your neighbors property.

    There is no HOA in my neighborhood. As a result I have some neighbors that do things I don't like.

    It works fine as long as I don't worry about it. I know that when I decide to build an ARK in my yard, they won't hassle me about it.

    If I have a guy with a car on blocks, I might go over with a case of beer and ask him if he wants me to help him to fix it. (pay for what you want.)

    Or I might decide I'm better off if that jalopy never runs.

  69. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: HOA

    Ray …. MOST OF THE RULES are what people want.

    many folks do not want a "weak" HOA and most folks who buy into an HOA do so – because they do not want to live next door to a rock band or backyard mechanic…

    they WANT those property right restrictions.

    Some HOAs, by the way, are NOT Democratic until the entire project is sold out and the original developer has no more interest in it.

    Many HOAs demonstrate the balance/tension between property rights and their exercise and how they affect others.

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how do you resolve disputes over property?

    ==============================

    Yours is your and mine is mine.

    Where is he dispute?

  71. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – if your driveway was 10 feet next to the next home.. you're not going to work on your jalopy … beer or no beer without the guy next door usually being bothered by it especially if you have parts scattered all over the place and it goes on for months.

    You say this is your "right".

    is it?

    I can't take it?

    are you sure?

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh, you mean disputes where the government takes something and yo don't think they paid enough?

    It is called a jury trial. The jury has people in it that knwo they may have a problem some day.

    I get the same number of jury challenges as the government.

    Some states have that system and they use a lot less eminent domain. After all, if you are going to be forced to pay a fair price in the end (as seen by regular people), why not just buy it fairly up front.

    Especially if when you lose you have to pay the jury, and the court, and my attorney.

    It is amazing how fair the government CAN become when you give them some incentive.

    RH

  73. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – if your driveway was 10 feet next to the next home.. you're not going to work on your jalopy … beer or no beer without the guy next door usually being bothered by it especially if you have parts scattered all over the place and it goes on for months.

    You say this is your "right".

    ================================

    Nope, I say that is the right of the guy next door to me, which I respect. Otherwise you have described the situation perfectly.

    I had a chance to buy the property when it was for sale, and I didn't.
    I can go make him an offer, anytime.

  74. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I had a chance to buy the property when it was for sale, and I didn't.
    I can go make him an offer, anytime. "

    or he can show you the law on junk cars in driveways while he offers you the beer.

    and then he can have officer "friendly" pay you a visit and suggest a ticket to go along with the beer.

    still your "right"?

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I could agitate to get the law changed, but if I did, his property would be worth less to him by the amount of the auto repairs he avoids.

    Those of us who invoked a new rule for OUR benefit owe him recompense for the benefit he had but lost.

    RH

  76. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I could agitate to get the law changed, but if I did, his property would be worth less to him by the amount of the auto repairs he avoids."

    you could .. but by the time the guy on the other side of you and across the state ALSO call the Sheriff.. your butt and your property rights are going to be in a sling.

    again.. is that junk care your right?

  77. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is not my car it is my neighbors junk car, and yes it is his right.

    He has tags on it and insurance on it BTW. All of them.

    But I have the same right, so it is OK.

    But if I take his right away, for some assumed public use, then I owe him money for it.

    That is what the Constitution says. That's why the Supreme Court orderd the local government to pay the guy in South Carolina for the two houses he wasn't allowed to build.

    If anybody didn't get paid for loss of property after that, it is either an uneven application of the law or a lousy attorney.

    RH

  78. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " But if I take his right away, for some assumed public use, then I owe him money for it.

    That is what the Constitution says. "

    then please explain the laws that say you cannot have things like junk cars on blocks in some jurisdictions.

    The Constitution – also says that govt is responsible for the general welfare – and zoning and property restrictions based on what is in the same constitution and found to be valid by both the State and the US Supreme Courts.

    I've never heard of a locality giving money to a property owner so he won't put a junk car on this property.

    Usually, it's the other way around.

    you get notice.

    if it stays, there you get a fine.

    if it still stays there, they pay a wrecker to come get it and send the bill to you.

    If you don't pay the bill, they put a lien on your property…etc…

    so do you have the "property right" to have a junk car on your property if the locality has an ordinance prohibiting it?

  79. Hydra Avatar

    Also, he can't agitate to take my right away, just because I have not used it yet, and still keep his junk car.

    For example, the new law could be written such that is is illeaal to maove a junk car onto your property.

    Since his is already there, he has not violated the law, and he gets to have something I don't. It is unequal protection and that ultimately leads to the Hockey player having the right to protect his teeth and the slave prostitute not that right.

    When are you going to change your ideas about property rights and stop helping to knock the teeth out of prostitutes?

  80. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "then please explain the laws that say you cannot have things like junk cars on blocks in some jurisdictions."

    They are perfectly OK, and OK with me as long as they paid off all the people who lost their beloved junk cars.

    I never said you cannot make a law, only that you must recompense people whose property is harmed by it.

    RH

  81. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I never said you cannot make a law, only that you must recompense people whose property is harmed by it."

    perhaps you can tell me .. out of the thousands of jurisdictions in the US which ones "recompense".

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "and zoning and property restrictions based on what is in the same constitution and found to be valid by both the State and the US Supreme Courts."

    Wrong, thee is no zoning law in the constitution.

    When the issue got to court the Supreme court (in the 1930's) allowed that zoning was ok because it allowed for future planning.

    That Supreme Caveat has long since been forgotten and ignored.

    One of the results was the Lucas case in South Carolina in which the county thought that it wad free to change the zoning and ignore the future planning of Mr. Lucas.

    The Supreme court said, not so fast you thieving morons, you owe Mr. Lucas several million dollars.

    That is the current state of the law, and the current spirit of the law. Yet hundreds of local jurisdictions have found ways to skate around it.

    My own supervisor even bragged to me once about how clever they were at not crossing the line that would get them into court.

    I never could respect the man after that.

    RH

  83. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    perhaps you can tell me .. out of the thousands of jurisdictions in the US which ones "recompense".

    ================================

    Not by name, offhand, but i can give you some general examples.

    Many jurisdictions have created or increased flood plain setbacks.

    Some jurisdictions offer recompense for this by increasing the density allowed on the remainder of the lot.

    Other jurisdictions deliberately and snidely use flood plain restriction in order to reduce density. No credit for loss in porperty value is given.

    Other jurisdictions are even worse: if you lose three lots, you might get one back as increased density. They KNOW what is required and they only do a third of it!

    RH

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Usually, it's the other way around.

    you get notice.

    if it stays, there you get a fine.

    ============================

    provided the law was here before the car youare correct.

    But if the car was there first, before the law, then the county would owe the individual for his costs of complying with the new law. They took his property for some public use.

    Then, if he put another car there, after the law, you would be correct.

    RH

  85. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Wrong, thee is no zoning law in the constitution.

    When the issue got to court the Supreme court (in the 1930's) allowed that zoning was ok because it allowed for future planning."

    I didn't say that. I said that zoning has been found to be Constitutional.

    " The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional.

    Further, the Court found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had in fact had any effect on the value of the property in question, but based their assertions of depreciation on speculation only. The court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings.

    Ambler Realty had argued their case on the basis of the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The Court noted that the challenger in a due process case would have to show that the law in question is discriminatory and has no rational basis. The Court found that Euclid's zoning ordinance in fact did have a rational basis."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid,_Ohio_v._Ambler_Realty_Co.

    that pretty much says that localities can zone and can determine what are valid uses and not.

  86. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    so do you have the "property right" to have a junk car on your property if the locality has an ordinance prohibiting it?

    No, and I never sais any such thing. What i said was that if I have a junk car, I have the right to have that car.

    If the county then takes that right they first owe me recompense for the proeprty and rights I lost.

    After that, if I put a new junk car thee, that is outside of my rights and the county can do all the things you said.

    RH

  87. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " After that, if I put a new junk car thee, that is outside of my rights and the county can do all the things you said"

    did they not take away your "rights" if you used to be able t put a junk car there and now you cannot?

    isn't that a "taking"?

  88. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I said that zoning has been found to be Constitutional.

    Zoning was found to be constitutional because it allowed for future planning

    What has happened since is that this important because has been largely ignored and even exploited.

    There is no doubt taht zoning is legal, but that does nothing to releive the responsibility of recompense when new zoning laws cause damage specifically becasue the new law damaged someones previous planning.

    You can change the law to better everyone else, but you should expect to pay the damages to the minority that it does not benefit.

    What part of FAIR is it that you do not understand?

  89. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    did they not take away your "rights" if you used to be able t put a junk car there and now you cannot?

    isn't that a "taking"?

    =================================

    Isn't that exactly what I have said all along?

  90. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You have copletely lost the point.

    The point is that property rights, failure to understand them, and failure to protect them for everyone equally, is exactly what is the ultimate underpinnings of Virginias New Slavery.

    Those slavers are trying to get something they have no right to, same as some county supervisors, and some AG's.

    RH

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I wrote a number of comments to EMR's post above.

    All of them have been deleted (censored) without comment.

    Free speach does not exist around EMR.

    Good bye, ladies and gentlemen.
    And EMR,too.

    RH

  92. SummerRain Avatar
    SummerRain

    OK, how do most of the women get into the country? I suspect the State Department visa line staff are good about letting just about anyone into the country so maybe this should be looked at.

Leave a Reply