This is a storm in a tea cup. If you agreed to the government’s right to take your home, why are you indignant at the extension of this right to others.

In any case, it takes a lot of litigation, hearings and obtaining permissions to start doing anything under this law. It’s not like Wal-MArt will tell you, “Get out! It’s my land now.”

It’s a knee jerk reaction, really.

1. Most people recognize some public uses. I don’t, but most people do, and I can understand why they do think gov’t should have the power to use land to build streets, bridges, etc.

2. Most people intuitively understand that if you open up the range of takings possibilities, more people will line up at the trough, so to speak. It’s a matter of institutional rules. Even if there is no moral difference between government using force to take land to build a school and government using force to take land to give to a developer to build a private school, once you open up the rule, all bets are off in the real world. Moral philosophy can help you in some respects, but it’s a starting point, not a stopping point, when pausing to consider what real-world rules are in order.

On a more principled basis, most moderate liberals believe strongly in the democratic process. They figure that state autonomy is better protected by Congress, and property owners by state legislatures, than by the federal courts. They figure, on the other hand, that federal courts, as representatives of the national elite, will be better on unconventional expression and sexual practices.

If you have something somebody richer than you wants, watch out.Will Wilkinson pretty well nails it. My outrage over this decision is beyond description, although it’s not much worse than Raich was.

Ownership of an asset entails rights – rather than obligations – to dispose of the asset as you see fit. Last week’s Kelo decision shows that the Supreme Court justices need some education on this. This distinction about rights versus

It’s time to juxtapose the Kelo and Grokster decisions. I suggest that theupshot of the Kelo decision is very close to file sharing, and that ultimately the meaning of the Grokster is deeply twisted. Kelo suggests that if: Able owns