The LA Times reports:
The decision by a panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal upholds Riverside’s ban. It could embolden more cities and counties to enact their own bans.
“We will be immediately moving to shut them down,” [Riverside] City Atty. Gregory Priamos said. “We’re extremely pleased that the court recognized and respected local land use and zoning authority.”
I love that last comment by Priamos. You can tell by that comment that we don’t live in a capitalist society any longer.
What Priamos is really saying is that “since business owners are simply too dumb to know how to use their property, the elected elite must use the violence of the State to ensure that all property under the elite’s authority is used in a manner prescribed by them.”
Heaven forbid someone open up a store that sells goods that the elite disapprove of. The world might come flying off its axis and go tumbling into the Sun.
Slightly off topic, but I was just reading some Marx trying to find a good quote to stick in this article so that I could demonstrate how Priamos’ comments are very Marxist in nature, when I realized two things:
1. Marx is a rambling lunatic.
2. No modern day Marxists could have possibly read and understood what Marx was saying.
Marx’s papers are so disjointed, rambling and illogical that no sane rational person could ever make sense of them. For example, here’s Marx talking about private property:
In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature – his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence – the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need – the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.
The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system.
Because men lust after women, it follows that we should abolish private property? Am I reading that right?