Replies

"The Supreme Court might obliterate even more of the Constitution by granting the government a "right" to harass, abuse, retaliate and threaten property owners who don't give agents a piece of their land for no cost."

If it comes to that there will no longer be even a pretense of rule of law.

Well, if this is the standard to expect, it should not be referred to as "land ownership". Private property is a misnomer I suppose - all property is apparently government property, and the government just lets you tend it (not rent free either - property taxes scuttle that argument). You only get to keep your land until the collective decides that another group is more favored than you, at which point the area is rezoned, the value reappraised, and you are made an offer you cannot refuse (literally).

Yet, with the increasingly expansive interpretation of 'eminent domain' by the courts and legislatures, there seems to be no concurrent drop in the value of land (wrt inflation). After all, decreased liquidity of every other commodity results in a decrease in value. I imagine that this disconnect will persist, which is unfortunate, as increased population densities will lead to more obscene and more frequent abuses of eminent domain powers.

The sheeple trust the nanny-state, and it is pretty clear that the average person is willing to trade their individual liberty for the illusion of benefits derived from blind compulsory collectivism. From the large number of sycophants who support the broad use of eminent domain, it doesn't even look like it will be a bumpy decline.