This one is going to need the blogosphere, I believe, so get ready and prominently link Eminent Domain Watch over on blogspot.com
Read MaxedOutMama for her addition, and let’s take back our freedom. The one statement I don’t really think is right is that Communists are drooling over Kelo. As much as this is redistribution property, it doesn’t even have the trappings of justice that Communism sought to cloak itself with. At least the entitled had to work their way up in that corrupt system. This one? We leave the rich and priviledged untouched, nay empowered, while taking from the hardworking everyday American, and from the citizen who is trying to obtain the American Dream, and from our elder citizens their very home security. This is not America… when you can no longer be assured that your home and life investment is safe from the greedy under the protection of the power of your government.
I am actually having a hard time believing this has taken place. I had hoped the court would side with the ordinary citizen on this one, putting up some barriers-however small to the increased encroachment. But what is the case? Our own Supreme Court throws all to the pig trough. Everything. What is the recourse of any common citizen under the law in this? I would like someone to answer me, because I have seen firsthand how little could be done in the face of eminent domain before this case. What is the appeal for the common man now?
To denude one of their very home is to leave them vulnerable indeed.
There are those who would argue that this will not be used abusively, that it is just more of what we have already lived with. I beg to differ. But it is time and history now that will decide.
I say that we have come to a sad case in this country on the Kelo decision. A very sad case, as our experience with first, Roe vs. Wade, and then with the aborted Restoration of Religious Rights efforts have taught us.
You never care enough for someones loss until you experience it yourself; it would be tragic for Americans to sit idly by while many lose their homes and businesses to vested interests in the name of “eminent domain”. In the interest of more taxes that are so easily spent and so lightly accounted for!
===additionally====
I would like to add one last thought to this: this is a devastating blow to the Conservatives, because Conservatives have favored big business getting their bottom line…but when you have trod upon the common man where he lives… you will not escape without repercussion in the voting booth.
Ilona – but the Communists believe they can get the government in place to use the power wisely. But I do agree that Communism has a moral grounding that is completely lacking in this decision. And I don’t object to the economic principles of Communism – I think it ends in disaster because of the social error it makes. In other words, I believe that true Communism can only be implemented in a religious society governed by a group of individuals guided by God.
Personally, I don’t think any political party can be trusted with this little rein on their power.
And finally (please forgive me for losing it and ranting in your comments), the most offensive part of this decision to me was the implicit elevation of economic goals above all other goals, which is to me the most unfree and unhumanistic principle that I can imagine. Does the mutual life of a community not matter more than its level of income? Are high income and tax-producing enterprises of more public purpose than a library, a park, a museum, or a stable community of homeowners?
Any purpose can be a “public” purpose, but “public use” is restricted to those things that the public can use, and is thus restricted to enterprises affirmed by the broader culture.
I too am having trouble believing that this happened and that the decision was written in such a way.
MoM, I have yet known you to rant:) You’re free to say all your opinion here.
I am not for Communism in any of its forms. I believe it is a recipe for corruption in all its forms. You describe the religious type, but I do not believe that is Communism as it is defined economically – it is what I would label ‘utopianism’, in that it requires all participants to volunteer from their heart towards the common welfare, and is directed by God. That is a Utopia, and is never something instituted by a methodology in a system that includes ‘unbelievers’.
Communism will always yeild totalitarian government. Which is why we see this particular Court decision:government doing a land grab to finance its continued soci*alism. I will write more on this.
I was drawn here, like a moth to the flame, by the C-word. No, not that one.
MoM – intriguingly, you’re arguing somewhat from the Left here. I bet you do not get accused of that often. 😉
“I don’t object to the economic principles of Communism – I think it ends in disaster because of the social error it makes.”
Ranting on about petit-bourgeois vacillations when everyone else wants to talk about what happened on Celebrity Love Island? Unfashionable beards in public places? 😉
“And finally (please forgive me for losing it and ranting in your comments), the most offensive part of this decision to me was the implicit elevation of economic goals above all other goals, which is to me the most unfree and unhumanistic principle that I can imagine.”
No anticapitalist could put it better. Will I see you in Gleneagles? 😉
However, in such a system, it has happened already, and I am not sure why you are shocked. Economic goals are already elevated above all other goals. If you want proof, look at any sweatshop. There, the goal of expensive pairs of trainers making serious cash for the company is valued as a goal far above goals such as education for children, decent work at a decent wage, organising in the workplace, and even the right to toilet breaks.
“Are high income and tax-producing enterprises of more public purpose than a library, a park, a museum, or a stable community of homeowners?”
I’m presuming tax is paying for the first three…
If we weren’t living the way we are, money would be fairly useless. You can’t eat it or drink it, you can’t wear it, and it’s not much use for writing on or building houses. However, we’ve developed a system where money is the means of getting necessities. With no tax, you’re relying on anyone who feels like it to provide these things you value so much. D’you reckon they will? If they do, do you then hope they’d be nice enough to provide them equally to everyone, no matter how much $$$ they have?
I don’t understand enough of the US laws to comment on Kelo, so nothing I say here should be taken as a comment on the rightness or otherwise of that decision. I will have to look it up before I can say.
Ilona, thanks for the email and the invite 🙂 I did write you a big reply then my provider ate it. I will try again later on.
“You describe the religious type, but I do not believe that is Communism as it is defined economically – it is what I would label ‘utopianism’, in that it requires all participants to volunteer from their heart towards the common welfare, and is directed by God.”
Um, yes and no. What you’re describing is primitive communism.
Utopianism is building castles in the sky, and reckoning one day you’ll end up there when everyone becomes nice enough 😉
Actually, Vash, I am right on this one… although I admit to bending the orthodox philosophical term, Utopianism.
Christian community as described is a utopia, but not in far off somewhere. It takes specific factors, but is an earthly utopia with better results than any communism or utopianism of any other type could hope for. It is not primitive communism, since no one had to share their wealth with the group. You could still have personal capital if you chose, even all your capital if you chose, there was only the requested offerings for the poor. And that, too, was completely voluntary.
It wasn’t communism, I think that is a myth, due mainly to the fact that they shared all things in common -although this was not requisite.
Glad you like the invite- you will enjoy gmail, I think.