“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party.”

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party.”

That

2 Comments so far

  1. david (unregistered) on June 27th, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

    is this for real? i mean, that gives the government a wide range of non-capitalist rights that the people don’t have. i don’t like it, even though i don’t like capitalism. that might work if the gov. was directed by, oh say, a dictatorship (esp. “of the proletariat”), but since this country is supposed to be democracy, and it’s really an autocracy in disguise, this ruling, if it’s is as you say it is, seems like no more than a toehold for Bushco to start “trading spaces” for real. Kill me now.


  2. nikkos (unregistered) on June 28th, 2005 @ 8:39 am

    Yep, this is for real. I tried not to be hyperbolic in my post, as this ruling really does speak for itself. I want to be clear that this is a Supreme Court ruling, not a Bush Administration policy, but as I mentioned, it is easy to see how even a well-intentioned ruling has the potential for abuse when those occupying the highest offices in the land respect neither the letter nor the spirit of the law.

    Suddenly, being a renter doesn’t sound so bad.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.