Dennis Claxton wrote:
>THE California Democratic Party has quietly thrown its weight behind
>a movement to stop the government from using eminent domain to buy
>people's property against their will and then handing it over to
>another private owner.
-Uh-oh, this should create a crisis in NathanLand! Guess they don't -realize they're objectively promoting racism.
Why should it create a crisis? I think Dems and other groups get suckered by the rightwing agenda a lot of the time. Yes, I know progressive groups are divided on this issue-- I admit to being hyperbolic in the "objectively reactionary" although if you didn't get the spoofing of the usual "supporting Democrats is supporting the rightwing" rhetoric that goes on around here, I'm sorry for not having an attached sarcastic smiley face or such.
To repeat once again, I agree with many of the criticisms of how eminent domain has been used and would support reforms to stop those, but I think various folks are being pulled into an absolutist definition of "property rights" which is far more likely to undermine progressive groups.
For example, the same folks pushing this absolutist defense against eminent domain also just won a court decision upholding a law banning "regulatory takings" of land property in Oregon. The same rhetoric of defending small property owners is used to attack all sorts of regulations in the same property rights rhetoric.
Nathan Newman