Conservatives are regularly accused of being in the pay of big buisness, yet in the Supreme Court decision over 'condemning' houses and buildings that are in perfectly good condition so a company can acquire and redevelop the land it was the liberal justices who supported it as constitutional and the conservatives justices who opposed it.
Of course it is no surprise that the icon of liberalism, the New York Times, itself acquired its office space this way by having the city of New York condemn and seize the property of a building owner and then demolish it to make way for its new building. Liberals have always liked the idea of redistributing property and despite a lot of chatter of doing it on behalf of the poor, it usually benefits those in power whether it was the commissars in the USSR or the commissars of Political Correctness in the US, the New York Times.
The conservative justices led by Reagan apointee Sandra Day O'Connor argued for the individual right to private property showing that this sets a precedent that allows any property to be condemned. And indeed as it stands if a company decides it would like a piece of land, all it needs to do is make some campaign contributions to the right local politicos and shazam, your house or buisness has been 'condemned' and turned over to the company.
What this does is essentially remove the right to have private property and replace it with 'private property at the discretion of the authorities.' If the authorities decide they have a better use for your house, they can and will take it. The applications of this under eminent domain have always been limited but by having local governments act as agents for companies in seizing private property for their own uses; we have a state of affairs in which as under the USSR the entire country becomes subject to a redevelopment campaign with the capitalist twist that it takes place under the aegis of companies looking to make a buck.
Liberals campaigned against Bush with the alarmist cry that if Bush is reelected, he will appoint conservative supreme court justices that will deprive us of our freedom. It is clear that we need more conservative justices on the supreme court if we are to keep any vestiges of our freedom.
Of course it is no surprise that the icon of liberalism, the New York Times, itself acquired its office space this way by having the city of New York condemn and seize the property of a building owner and then demolish it to make way for its new building. Liberals have always liked the idea of redistributing property and despite a lot of chatter of doing it on behalf of the poor, it usually benefits those in power whether it was the commissars in the USSR or the commissars of Political Correctness in the US, the New York Times.
The conservative justices led by Reagan apointee Sandra Day O'Connor argued for the individual right to private property showing that this sets a precedent that allows any property to be condemned. And indeed as it stands if a company decides it would like a piece of land, all it needs to do is make some campaign contributions to the right local politicos and shazam, your house or buisness has been 'condemned' and turned over to the company.
What this does is essentially remove the right to have private property and replace it with 'private property at the discretion of the authorities.' If the authorities decide they have a better use for your house, they can and will take it. The applications of this under eminent domain have always been limited but by having local governments act as agents for companies in seizing private property for their own uses; we have a state of affairs in which as under the USSR the entire country becomes subject to a redevelopment campaign with the capitalist twist that it takes place under the aegis of companies looking to make a buck.
Liberals campaigned against Bush with the alarmist cry that if Bush is reelected, he will appoint conservative supreme court justices that will deprive us of our freedom. It is clear that we need more conservative justices on the supreme court if we are to keep any vestiges of our freedom.
Comments
This proud liberal does NOT support any such scheme.
ReplyDeleteRepresentatives from which side of the aisle DID support it?
Post a Comment