Saturday, January 26, 2013

The State Owns That, Not You

Looks like another democrat over in California doesn't understand the concept of private property.  This time, it's a professional sports team.  There's a chance Steve Ballmer (of Microsoft) is interested in buying some California sports franchise and moving it to Seattle.  The democrats in the state senate don't like that, even though that franchise is not theirs and they have no right to it. 

You want to see how psychotic leftists are and why the path they're taking us down requires you never forfeit your guns, this is it.


Anonymous said...

Do you know how many deals are made during a sports game? A lot. I mean if you look at some fans during the game, they don't pay attention at all. It's also difficult to eavesdrop with a rifle mike because of the crowd noise.

Just watch Inviticus with Morgan Freeman as the South African President watching on the rugby game as his assistant reads off critical issues off her list.

Even our own politicians such as former NY mayor Rudy G used to go to Yankee games... probably through "gifts" and where he made deals to get the tix and during the game.

That's why they're pissed in Sacramento. No more great deals.

Jose said...

Don't you understand the concept of "state heritage"?

As in Nevada's gaming commission, circa mid-90s I think, pressure on one of the casino owners who wanted to auction his collection of vintage cars, thereby making [pay attention now] Nevada lose one of its attractions to car enthusiasts. [Did you notice it?]

Or the several countries in Europe that have rules forbidding individuals who own ancient art from selling it to foreigners [again, did you see it?]

Yes, in the minds of many people, PRIVATE PROPERTY that these people consider some sort of public value only belongs to the OWNERS by sufferance of these same people (as agents of the state, that is).

Small wonder some corporatists get into the game and start demanding public money (from the people whose campaigns they contribute to, in an amazing coincidence) for their private enterprises.

This some ignoramuses call "capitalism."

Enjoying the decline,

Anonymous said...

I don't give a shit what happens to the morons in CA, as long as their bullshit remains there. Bring it into my community and I'll jam my thumb in their eye!!

Feh said...

Eh, sports teams are happy to use the gummint to benefit them -- e.g., getting tax breaks and subsidies on stadiums -- so I don't feel too sorry for them if they get the sht-end of the gummint power stick for once.

Why doesn't Steve Ballmer just start his own new teams? Oh, because pro sports leagues are monopolies that are largely immune from the free play of competitive forces. The heart of the business structure of pro sports leagues is the "exclusive territorial franchise" assigned to the owner of each member team, and the owners' ability to preserve league-wide market power. "The monopoly power exercised by leagues has been used to bring pressure on local governments around the country, with threats to move teams if stadiums or arenas are not built," the authors say. Between 1950-97, 47 pro sports franchises changed cities. Thirty-four new stadiums or major renovations of existing facilities came online between 1992-98. Through "sweetheart" rental agreements in pro team sports, almost all the cost of facilities are shifted to the tax-paying public, while the teams reserve all or most of the revenues. How are sports leagues able to sustain their monopoly power? They restrict the number of franchises in order to increase league-wide profits, as well as the franchise values of member teams. The leagues have been able to expand sufficiently to deter entry. Yet, they preserve enough vacant sites to make the threat of moving teams believable.

In short, the teams are not really private property and do not operate in a truly free market. Since the franchise system exists due to the operation of the government, the government has at least some right to determine what teams are located where.