Do you Believe in Big Government?...
. . . Big enough to take your house away? Not only did patriots build this nation (and a few others) on a commitment to the sanctity of private property--but Marx called private property the original sin that caused all our modern woes. (Marx's Eden was primitive collectivism, his fall was the advent of private property, and his redemption the wholesale destruction of private commerce and the bourgeosie--you and me--in favor of an all-powerful State.)
Personally, I prefer a government that respects private property, taking it only for an essential public purpose, like schools, roads, hospitals. Not Wal-Marts. What the Supreme Court did this summer was apalling. I have written about it previously. But I like what's going on outside the New Hampshire home of David Souter. Just wish they'd launch similar actions at the homes of the other four justices who think the government should be able to take your property any time it wants to redecorate, the same way my wife shifts chairs and sofas around. The city wants you out and a strip center in? Who can stop them now? (Of course--sensible states like Texas have already passed their own laws limiting this ridiculous power.) Anyway, they're making progress with the Souter action.
An interesting point: a critic says you just don't go around attacking a Justice because you disagree with the decision. But this is no attack. It's just a run-of-the-mill condemnation action, you know? I'm with the activist, who says his action is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party. I agree. The decision is way outta' line.
Insulating Souter from the results of his decision puts me in mind of another book on the Wish List: Do as I Say, (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. The author explains that when conservatives are hypocrites--which they are often--they hurt themselves and their families. But when liberals are hypocrites what happens? They make more money, they drive better cars, they pay less taxes, they hire competent workers regardless of race--in other words, they benefit themselves. Liberal hypocrisy is actually good for you.... and good for Souter if he can keep his house.
Personally, I prefer a government that respects private property, taking it only for an essential public purpose, like schools, roads, hospitals. Not Wal-Marts. What the Supreme Court did this summer was apalling. I have written about it previously. But I like what's going on outside the New Hampshire home of David Souter. Just wish they'd launch similar actions at the homes of the other four justices who think the government should be able to take your property any time it wants to redecorate, the same way my wife shifts chairs and sofas around. The city wants you out and a strip center in? Who can stop them now? (Of course--sensible states like Texas have already passed their own laws limiting this ridiculous power.) Anyway, they're making progress with the Souter action.
An interesting point: a critic says you just don't go around attacking a Justice because you disagree with the decision. But this is no attack. It's just a run-of-the-mill condemnation action, you know? I'm with the activist, who says his action is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party. I agree. The decision is way outta' line.
Insulating Souter from the results of his decision puts me in mind of another book on the Wish List: Do as I Say, (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. The author explains that when conservatives are hypocrites--which they are often--they hurt themselves and their families. But when liberals are hypocrites what happens? They make more money, they drive better cars, they pay less taxes, they hire competent workers regardless of race--in other words, they benefit themselves. Liberal hypocrisy is actually good for you.... and good for Souter if he can keep his house.
posted by S. at
11:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home