Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Kelo v. City of New London, Update
A rational and selfish individual will not voluntarily contribute to community welfare even though he/she would share in that welfare. We could even suggest that the only people who do voluntarily sacrifice personal rewards for the public good are nothing but patsies. The person who refuses to contribute to the common good gets a double reward. He or she gets the immediate reward of the money or effort saved, and the long term reward of collecting whatever public good the patsies createdThere are two choices to solve the problem. The market approach or the common good approach. Some will object to the market approach as favorable to the rich. However, since people choose their self interests, the common good can only be enforced by regulation and taxation (The point of the Gun).
From Capitalism Magazine
Individual rights protect man's freedom -- freedom from the coercion of others -- to pursue his life and happiness in the only way he can, by following reason. Initiating force against another, by its vary nature, is anti-reason and therefore anti-life. This is what our mainstream intellectuals and politicians obscure, evade and oppose when they advocate the violation of individual rights.The thing that got me interested in the first place was news that the Bush Administration was planning on filing an amicus brief in favor of the City of New London. The deadline for filing amicus briefs in Kelo vs City of New London passed without intervention by the Bush administration. A decision is expected in July.
When a collectivist claims that individual rights must be subordinated to the "public good," his concept of "public" is divorced from individuals, and his concept of "good" is divorced from reason, freedom and justice. His claim amounts to: The needs or desires of some necessitate the enslavement and destruction of others.