Just Like Gun Bans, Forced Smart Meters Is Just Bunk Right?

[BlueCollarCritic]

Regardless of whether you like Smart meters or not the fact is that in the United States we are supposed to have private property rights. Despite the fact that we don't own any property because of property taxes (i.e. so long as you can have your property taken for non-payment of the annual rent to the governmnet called property tax you don't own your house or land you are merely renting it) and have not in a very long time even though private property rights are suppose to be a fundemental right and part of our system, up until Smart meters you still did have control over your land as far as what others could do with the exception being government authorized actions like property theft called Immenent domain.

ENTER Smart Meters. Did any of you debunkers ever post somethig like "They are not forcing Smart Meters on anyone who does't want one"? Well just as with gun registration which will later become gun confiscation/gun bans, the Smart meter push is now being forced on homeowners and if you try to say no you will find your self arrested.

Hows that for a conspiracy theory? STill think nothing is going on, that theres no orchestarted effort to eliminate constitutional rights and the right of the individual in favor of those of the collective?

See Americans being arrested for refusing the Smart Meter - http://www.infowars.com/two-women-ar...-installation/

[Mick]

Well, before forced smart meters, you had forced regular meters. The property rights implications are the same. There's no real change. The power company is upgrading their systems. They won't have manual meter readers in that area, so they have to upgrade the meters to continue providing service. Ignoring the supposed health and privacy concerns, I don't see an issue with private property rights. You have to have a meter, and now there's only one option for the type of meter. How is that property rights?

[MikeC]

you were obliged to give access to your property to allow meter readers - now you do not have to do that.

Of course you also do not have to ahve the supply in the first place - but if you do have it then the meter is the property of the utility company, and you MUST give them access to THEIR property.

What is it that you are actually complaining about??

there are existingthreads on here about smart meters:
http://metabunk.org/threads/430-Smart-Meters-Murder
http://metabunk.org/threads/228-Smar...ty-electricity

[Trigger Hippie]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6519967.story

Content from external source:

The city, which has repeatedly declared the wireless meters to be safe, offers a non-wireless alternative meter to residents with concerns. There is a $68.35 initial fee for a non-wireless meter plus a $24.75 monthly fee for manually reading it.

Content from external source:

“The city has always had and maintains the right to access our equipment, and today we were simply exercising that right,” he said.

They were not arrested for refusing a smart meter. They were arrested for interfering with a peace officer.

[solrey]

Hows that for a conspiracy theory? STill think nothing is going on, that theres no orchestarted effort to eliminate constitutional rights and the right of the individual in favor of those of the collective?

A republic, or any other form of government where citizens and/or their representatives are allowed to vote, where the majority rules, on issues that affect their society, is inherently a collective and it's also the collective rights of the citizenry along with the individual as a member of the collective, that are protected under the constitution. As a member of a constitutional democracy where the majority wins the day, one must also be willing to accept that their ideas/beliefs are in the minority and things won't always go their way. What you're advocating there BCC is more like anarchy and in fact the constitution replaced the articles of confederation primarily due to the fact that the colonies were devolving into anarchy. The Federalists were by far the majority at the time and they wrote the constitution to ensure a strong central government explicitly for the purpose of preventing anarchy. The anti-federalists libertarian ideals were, and still are, in the minority in this country.

And taxes, including property taxes, provided the revenue to finance the war for independence from England that made the constitution possible.

[LogicAndSanity]

A republic, or any other form of government where citizens and/or their representatives are allowed to vote, where the majority rules, on issues that affect their society, is inherently a collective and it's also the collective rights of the citizenry along with the individual as a member of the collective, that are protected under the constitution. As a member of a constitutional democracy where the majority wins the day, one must also be willing to accept that their ideas/beliefs are in the minority and things won't always go their way. What you're advocating there BCC is more like anarchy and in fact the constitution replaced the articles of confederation primarily due to the fact that the colonies were devolving into anarchy. The Federalists were by far the majority at the time and they wrote the constitution to ensure a strong central government explicitly for the purpose of preventing anarchy. The anti-federalists libertarian ideals were, and still are, in the minority in this country.

And taxes, including property taxes, provided the revenue to finance the war for independence from England that made the constitution possible.

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic.

[solrey]

Oh good grief... I know the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic.

The first words in my comment were, "A republic, or any other form of government where citizens and/or their representatives are allowed to vote". The very next sentence I then said "As a member of a constitutional democracy where the majority wins the day", which was just describing a constitutionally protected right to vote that applies to any form of democracy, including a presidential republic... or a parliamentary republic or parliamentary monarchy, etc.