[C. Edmund Wright]

That argument strikes me as being not too far removed from the arguments of the New London case. The state can take your land if it will get them more revenue giving it to someone else, and they can do the same with your livlihood.

You are not trying very hard. Two huge gaping holes in your theory: FIRST In New London, they TOOK A GUYS PROPERTY. The ocean is NO ONE"S PROPERTY. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?

SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.

[tacticalogic]

The ocean is NO ONE"S PROPERTY. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?

The part where the ocean and the fish in it are "no one's property", yet they assume the authority to control it as if it was their property.

SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.

As long as the economy is taxed, more economic activity will result in more tax revenue. Unless you know what they were thinking when they wrote the regulations, whether it's about the economic activity or the taxes is speculation.