🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37345FE9.3A443A10@jhu.edu>,
  "bgInc. - You'll go where we want you to go" <tom.otoole@jhu.edu>
wrote:
> Dennis Higgins wrote:
>
> > It's about damned time that Constitutionally guaranteed property
rights reverted
> > to private property owners.  If the Chesapeake Bay Foundation wants
the swamps to
> > be undrained, let them pay fair market value for the property
instead of engaging
> > in ersatz theft of property by using government to enforce absurd
use
> > restrictions.
> >
>
> So are you also against when the government took the land away from
the people who
> previously lived there and gave it to the ancestors of the people
> who now 'own' it? Or is it only when the government makes a
restriction
> inconvenient for you? Are you for all the road subsidies given by the
govt. to
> people who drive in from (for example) drained swamps?
>

I don't know about Dennis, but I am against government forcing ANYONE
off of their land.  And the government is about to pay big bucks to
Native Americans - not for their land, but for lost royalty payments.

The Native Americans are going to finally get their compensation.

The point, however, is largely moot.  Simply because the government
cleared title to land, does not mean that they can then take it away.
Otherwise, property rights would be completely meaningless in any land
held by the Federal Government via a treaty made with another
government (such all of the land west of the original 13 states).

As for wetlands, the issue is clear:  if private property is being
taken for public use (such as for a nature preserve, or for the
hydrological values that a wetland possesses), then the Constitution
demands that just compensation be paid.

As for "road subsidies", why should these lands be any different than
the roads government puts in elsewhere in a county or state?  And let's
not forget that these people will be paying for these roads - in the
form of taxes (of all sorts).  Nobody gets a free ride.

> Face it, 'the government' originally created and defends the property
rights you
> speak of.
>

That does not matter in the slightest.

> By the way, what will happen when all the swamps are drained for
short term
> economic gain?

If that is a threat, then simply condemn the land and take it for
public use.

Otherwise, what will happen is simple:  if the hydrological values are
lost, then some other means will have to be found for replacing them
(if that is necessary).  These artificial means will cost quite a bit,
and these same people who have been benefiting from the short term gain
of draining the wetlands will pay through the noses in their increased
taxes.

>What about people who depend on this watershed for
> their livelihood? Things are connected and no man is an island.
>

If THEY would like to keep the land clear, then THEY can buy it.  Or
they will have to find a way to make their livelihood without depending
on that land being kept clear.  Such is the nature of business.

 - Andrew Langer


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---