Libertarian principles
favor the rights of the individual over those of the state, with exceptions
made for matters such as national defense, in which our survival instincts as a
society hold sway. (Matters in which the stakes are high and a ‘compelling
interest’ is claimed).
Similarly, in a practice often
opposed by libertarians, eminent domain has been used to assert the rights of
the public (the public-good) over
those of the individual. (Matters where a compelling interest is again claimed,
though the stakes are far lower, e.g. the construction of a road or an airport,
not the survival of the nation. And fair market value for the seized property
must be paid—though this is often a matter of dispute).
However, now it seems eminent
domain is being used to assert the corporate-good
over the public-good, the individual
be damned, and in a matter where the stakes are enormously high (if you believe
in climate change and its consequences). A matter in which the ‘compelling
interest’ of the public and the rights of the individual align, but are
nevertheless being thwarted.
All I can say is: consider
it a litmus test. And look at who is in favor of this and ask what their
principles really are.
There are legitimate arguments to be made for a pipeline to be sure. That it is safer than transporting oil by truck or rail or other means, assuming that transport is either inevitable or a good idea. But are the same people advancing these arguments also concerned about global warming? If you push for one thing, but not against the other, it is very telling. And if you aren't arguing from facts. Where are the numbers, and what are the consequences of a spill? Less frequent accidents are not the whole story if the consequences of a single accident are much more severe? Are they, or not? And what of the future resale value of the property the pipeline crosses? Is that being taken into account when compensation is set? Just asking.
ReplyDelete