🚀 go-pugleaf

Pete Farmer writes:
 > Russ, you can't just dismiss this with a swipe of your hand as an
 > "unconstitutional taking."

Sure I can.  You don't have to be a genius to be able to read the
Constitution.  It says "nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation."  There's no limitation on what is
private property.  Certainly the Supremes have changed their mind over 
the years about what constitutes a "taking" -- the principle until
fairly recently has been that any kind of restrictions on use are not
a taking so long as some use is left.

That's wrong.  What else can I say about it?  It's just plain wrong.
Yes, it means that a number of laws would be rendered
unconstitutional.  Oh well.  Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  One
doesn't say "Well, this is right, but it would be too expensive to
hold to a strict moral code, so we're going to compromise our
integrity for money."  That's the principles of thieves and whores.

Anybody want to raise their hand and claim those principles as well?  Jamie?

 > Or do you think that the courts (over a 100-year period) have acted
 > simply as dupes or co-conspirators in upholding unconstitutional
 > "meddling" of Congress?

Yeah, basically.  The Civil War instituted modern intrusive
government, and we haven't recovered since.

 > I'd hate to think you were that cynical about the system.

Pete, you couldn't begin to understand the cynicism I hold towards
"the system".  I believe everything bad anyone has to say about the
government, because I know that the reality is probably worse by two.
I think my father put it best when he said "There's nothing the
government can do that private enterprise can't do better."

-- 
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>  http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   Truth and Justice.