In all seriousness, I wonder what your views on property are? You mention "property activists", what does that mean? This Supreme Court you usually vilify for its "right wing" rulings recently (HobbyLobby, Corporate Speech, Gun rights, etc) made one of the worst rulings vis-a-vis private property in our history. So you should support them, at least on that. But, seriously, what is your view on property? It seemed, after you huffed and puffed a bit, earlier to say that the government shouldn't seize wages without at least a court hearing. But do you feel same on other types of property? Are you against, on principle, private ownership of property? Only real property or all property? Portable possessions? Bank accounts? Do you support Hollywood (big Obama supporters) in their persecution of file-sharers (after all why should that media property be held dear?) Where do you draw the line? And when does one become a "property activist?"
One is a "property activist" when you place property and wealth above all else. You value your treasure so much you care only about your wealth. You do anything, say anything to keep it, even lie and commit crimes. You misrepresent anyone you feel may, in any way, endanger any part of your acquisitions. Whether there's any real danger, it doesn't matter. It yours, by God, and none shall breach! Society, be damned! Country, be damned!
The reality is that we fought a war over the definition of property. The side that included black human beings as property lost. Yet that side claims God is on their side. Go figure.
Property belongs to one who earns it.
Earns, not homesteads native American land. (google: homestead act)
(Ironically, part of the Homestead Act was to prevent slave owners from extending to other territories. Yet, from where did the land come? It had all belonged to native Americans, even if the French or Spanish claimed it. Also, the Homestead Act no longer exists, so even if you wanted to, you couldn't have the same advantages people who now own large tracts of this nation had - free land.)
Earns, not connives with arcane indentures, creating perpetual debt where blacks signed back their land and sharecropped what should've been theirs.(google:sharecropping)
Earned, not where a company like Bain bribes a management team with bonuses for awarding them a contract to manage all assets, then lays off thousands of people, saddles the company with debt to pay management fees to themselves, then breaks the company apart while paying themselves fees to manage the bankruptcy. (google: Bain capital)
Earned, not connived by arranging low grade mortgage securities into a pool for unwary investors, then arranging to be the counterparty to those securities, knowing full well they were misgraded and going to fail. (google: John Paulson)
Earned, not borrowing $6 million from Daddy, then "parlaying" it into billions by holding a city hostage and dodging out of obligations through bankruptcy. (google: Donald Trump)
I think you get the point. What's ironic is the people who've schemed and connived the most are the loudest advocates about "stealing" what's theirs. As if anyone, ever in this nation's history, has been taxed into the poor house.