Marxist Propagandist Matthew Yglesias Buys $1.2 Million Mansion
Nothing sticks in the craw like the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of well-to-do collectivists. This is what Slate’s Matthew Yglesias has to say about property rights, the foundation of civil society:
“The concept of ‘redistribution’ falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state.”
That is, you don’t own anything unless some government thug lets you own it.
Meanwhile, via the Washingtonian,
Journalist and political blogger Matthew Yglesias bought a three-bedroom, three-bath condo on Q Street in Logan Circle for $1.2 million. In a converted Victorian rowhouse, the unit has original exposed-brick walls and a private patio.
Occupy Wall Street derelicts shuffling around looking for a place to crash should make their way to Washington. No doubt Yglesias will agree that his pricey digs belong to The People.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
Uh, give me a minute or two to check with Media Matters and I’ll drop a witty comment in here.
Might have to wait for my meds to kick in first, though.
Oh, here’s an email from the Soros Foundation!….
Waiting.
Yeah.
He’s so individual and unique he looks like every other unique hipster individual.
I suggest some Unpretentiousil.
This should give him plenty of room to practice his Palin Derangement Syndrome.
And $1.2 million? Leftists will never see the hypocrisy.
Well then…next time I’m in the neighborhood I know where to stop for a shit, shower, shave, and sandwich. No particular order.
1.2 mil for a glorified apartment with a “private” patio. OOOOOOHHHH! Wow. I have one word for you. SUCKER!!!!!!!
That money would have gotten you a REAL house in my town, with a REAL garage (for your prius, no doubt) with water frontage, and with REAL privacy. Liberals are such silly douchebags.
.
LOL @ Joe! What I was thinking! He sure got ripped off. That is NOT a Mansion!
I bet he has to pay over $1000 / mo in “maintenance charges” in addition to his mortgage payments.
.
.
@Joe and @Ummah: True, true. But how much room, really, does this guy need in order to get “up close and personal” with his male buddies?
In essence, private property is stewardship rights over God’s creation deriving its existence in the Word of God, and enshrined in our Consitution. Any deviation from that right what this Commie freak is proposing is nothing but theft, and deprivation of liberty. Redistribution is theft, unbiblical, and unconstitional. And the tyranny that would try to force it on us is precisely why we have a Second Amendment:
The piece below sums up very well the inalienable rights to own private property that derive from God and are enshrined in our Constitution, as drafted by God fearing and inspired men. Those that want to have nothing to do with God and our Constitution are our enemies:
“The New Testament confirms the relationship between sovereignty and ownership: “For the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains” (1 Cor. 10:26). Because God is absolutely sovereign, no earthly institution or person can claim independent and absolute ownership of property.
This does not mean, however, that individuals, families, and corporations cannot own property. Rather, it means that the ownership of property is regarded as a stewardship to be governed by the Word of God.
The accumulation of property through theft (Ex. 20:15), confiscation of property by governmental decree (1 Kings 21), and the willful destruction of property by the envious (Gen. 26:12, 17) are lawless acts, destructive to an orderly society.
The possession of property is a way for the godly to fulfill their dominion assignment under God. God gives His creatures possession of the earth to extend the boundaries of the kingdom as they fulfill their calling in obedience to His Word; therefore, the confiscation of property is an attack upon the kingdom and its advance.
Since the family is the primary institution whereby the Dominion Covenant is to be extended, laws were given to protect the property of families, and families themselves. The Jubilee laws of Leviticus 25 insured a family that it would always have land so that dominion could be exercised. Property could not be taxed. Even the father could not dispossess his family from the land because of carelessness, poor stewardship, or debt. Fathers were instructed to lay up an inheritance for their children so that the work of dominion under God could continue.
When a man is secure in the possession of his property, he has an area of liberty and dominion that is beyond the reach of other men. If no man or no State can reach in to tax and confiscate property, man can enjoy true liberty and great security, whether he’s prosperous or poor. Every attack on private property is, therefore, an attack on man’s liberty. Man’s freedom and security in the possession of his property is not only basic to man’s independence, but it is also basic to his power. A man has power if he can act independently of other men and the state, if he can make his stand in the confidence of liberty. Every attack on private property therefore is also an attack on the powers of free men as well as their liberty. ((R. J. Rushdoony, Law and Liberty, 83.))
Is it any wonder, therefore, that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in their 1848 Communist Manifesto, originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party, that the right to hold individual private property was a crime against the State? Their first “commandment” called for the “abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” Their third “commandment” abolished “all right of inheritance.”[1] Both of these edicts sought to overrule the biblical order where laws against theft operate and inheritance laws are the norm. Marx understood that “property is power.” The Bible secures private property for many individuals and many families. Communism consolidates power under the umbrella of the one State. From this position of consolidated power the State controls the individual, the family, church, school, and every other institution God ordained for the proper ordering of society. The State therefore becomes both sovereign and owner, displacing God as the absolute sovereign and owner over all creation. The direction of the people comes from the State’s central planning committee. This committee determines what is “best” for the people.
Those who wish to deny private property, and thus, the biblical mandate of stewardship, fail to recognize God’s order for society. A person’s property is tied to the past and has meaning for the future because it is seen in the context of the family as God’s means of insuring future dominion. This is why Naboth was unwilling to sell his vineyard: “The Lord forbid that I should give you [Ahab] the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Kings 21:3). Property must be seen in the context of a man and his family’s calling under God. The commandments “You shall not steal” and “You shall not covet” (Exodus 20:15, 17) are meaningless unless there are prior owners responsible to God as faithful stewards of His property.
Since the creature’s relationship is one of steward under His heavenly Master, we can expect God to require an accounting of property He places in our possession. A steward manages the household and resources of his owner. The parable of the unfaithful steward shows how serious God is about the resources He places in our care. He expects a return on His investment. The Christian is told to “do business” until Jesus returns: “A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back’” (Luke 19:12–13). The slave who refused to develop and extend the stewardship that was given to him lost even the original possession: “Take the mina away from [the poor steward], and give it to the one who has the ten minas” (v. 24). When the bystanders protested, Jesus silenced them with these words: “I tell you, that to everyone who has shall more be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away” (v. 26).
Those who fail to recognize their ownership as a stewardship seldom understand that without the hand of God they would have nothing. Even the ability to use the property God gives us comes from Him. It is God who gives gifts to men (Eph. 4:8) and supplies resources for productivity:
It is God who gives rain upon the earth, and sends water upon the fields. He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. He clothes the grass of the field, causing the grass to grow for cattle and herb for the service of man. He feeds the birds of heaven. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His knowledge and will. He gives us our daily bread… He crowns the year with goodness and the paths drop fatness. He even gives that which is abused and used in the service of another god. He gave grain and new wine and the oil and multiplied silver and gold which they used for Baal. He makes the wind His messengers and flames of fire His ministers. The whole earth is filled with His glory. So that the pious contemplation of His working brings forth the exclamation of adoration, “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches” [Job 5:10; Matt. 5:45; Ps. 104:4; 104:24; 65:11; Hos. 2:8].”
http://americanvision.org/3756/a-biblical-view-of-private-property/
If this guy is going to personally try to redistribute my personal property or seize my weapons, I say let’s have it, the sooner the better.
“Do as we say, not as we do”. And they prove it every chance they get.
He might be one of those aliens comming froma dying planet like in the sci fi TV series THE INVADERS just look at his pinkie finger and when he dies he disinstgrates in a puff of red smoke and leaves his ashes behind
Remember that California has the largest illegal alien population and many have been programmed to think the USA was stolen from Mexico..
LA. IS THEIR AZTLAN CAPITAL………….
Clearly, private property does exist before, without, and independent of the state.
For sure.
Leftists totaly reject private property like all communists sludgeworms do
UPTON SINCLAR who wrote THE JUNGLE was himself a big time COMMUNISTS
This brings back horrible memories of the elite millionaires & billionaires who fabricated/operated the Occupy Movement.
Comrades, trust fund rebels meet me at Starbucks with your imaxipad and Guy Fawkes mask from the Warner Bros. gift shop and we’ll crush the state on the way over to hot topic to pick up a Che shirt! Yes we can.
The same thing happened in Russia. Wealty trust funders sitting idly at colleges learning nothing of any practical application in the workaday world plotting to overturn the order of things with promises of glorious hopey changey and no one asking if the change could be for the worse. The dumbing down is so prevalent that people don’t even have a clue about history from the last 100 years.