Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Back to the basics

If I personally were to come and take your house and give it to my friends, that would be stealing. If the city\county\state were to take your house and give it to a local business, which happened to donate a good bit toward my campaign last year, it would be legal in some states.

The supreme court is going to hear a case about eminent-domain. I love the way Reuters says it:
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would decide whether the government can take an individual's private property for business development intended to boost tax revenues and revitalize a local economy.

In other words, the US supreme court is going to decide if it can lower the importance of the individual and increase the importance of the government/state/local economy/society.

Lets hope they choose wisely. I stand on the side of personal liberty and power.

Presently we have a system that works ok. It has a checks and balances because the government must pay a fair price. This will keep them from taking land in prime areas, hopefully.

Reuters points out the importance of this decisions.

The U.S. Constitution allows governments to take private property through their eminent-domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.

In other words, the supreme court could change the Constitution. That is how IMPORTANT this court case is.

I love how the socialists hate corporations, but are willing to work with them once the corporations want the exact same thing the local government wants.

Off topic rantings
What is good for the person is good for society. My idea of social responsibility is for everyone else to handle their shit, so that no one else has to.

The socialists want to control the market and bend it to their will for the good of society.

This is universal: Money and power corrupt. The socialist think that giving that money and power to the government will remove corruption from the market place, and make the world a better place. That is illogical, naive, and dangerous.



Andrew said...

Would you stop saying socialists, goddammit?! :)

There's nobody approaching a socialist in the United States. In Europe, maybe, but not here. We're the most conservative modern nation in the world. Our 'left' is more conservative than the conservatives in Europe.

Anyway... we have government so that it can work in the momentary interests of the people. As I've said before, the market system is a great system both societies and individuals, but it only works perfectly when you have full disclosure and sufficient resources.

At certain moments in time, and in certain locations, either of those conditions may be lacking. Under these conditions, it's important for the government to intervene--if only to right the situation so that the market can work properly again.

The Republicans and Democrats both admit to this. They tend to have different ideas of what adjustments need to be made, and both suffer (massively) from the kinds of corruption you just described, but niether one of them are anywhere near socialist.

Cubicle said...

"Would you stop saying socialists, goddammit?! :)"