Eminent Domain Scaremongering: Keystone XL opponents claim TransCanada tells Nebraska landowners property will be taken ‘without significant compensation’

The Fifth Amendment guarantees “just compensation.”

Anti-Keystone XL-er Amy Blumenshine claims:

Over 1,000 citizens showed up and 300 asked to testify. Most who spoke were from Nebraska and the opponents to the pipeline were in a 12 to 1 majority. I felt good that I had come to stand—as we did during testimonies—in support of landowners who had been bullied by the “bigness” of the forces that sought to use their land. Landowners and farmers (often women, I note) talked of the arrogance, deceit and threats of the agents who’d visited them. Many testified that they had been told that their land would be taken by eminent domain without significant compensation if they refused to sign permission for easements to cross their land. For this, said the testifiers, TransCanada showed itself to be the proverbial “bad actor,” a category of applicant whom the State Department is required to reject.

9 thoughts on “Eminent Domain Scaremongering: Keystone XL opponents claim TransCanada tells Nebraska landowners property will be taken ‘without significant compensation’”

  1. Just compensation requires an agreement between buyer and seller. By definition eminent domain is not just compensation, since it is not an agreement.

  2. Only the seller/owner has the moral right to set HIS price for HIS property. The buyer/non-owner can only accept or reject. Using the strong arm (gun) of the government to FORCE the seller to sell at the buyers price is a violation of the rights of the seller.

    What then would the so called public gain by aiding an abetting a corporation intent on violating individual rights? Nothing but still more violation of individual rights. A short term illusion of gain at the price of a major long term enormous loss. If one person’s rights can be violated at whim, then anyone’s rights can be violated at whim. It is not if, but when for each and every one of us!

    You say: “Public Interest”. Blow that out your ear. There is no such thing as Public Interest, there are only individual interests. Take away the individuals you have no public AND no interest to be met. The actual meaning of Public Interest is that some get to take while others are forced to give. How is that different from a thug attacking you in a dark ally? There is no real difference except for the number of thugs doing the dirty work.

  3. You are simply wrong. Government properly condemns land for such public interests as building highways.

    BUT . . . to the extent that you are talking about this case alone, I agree with you.

    Do we know that government is condemning their land? I haven’t seen that it is.

  4. If the highway is so damn important to you, then YOU pay for it yourself. If you can’t then maybe it wasn’t so important to you. Why do you think that because you need/want it, it gives you the right to force ME to pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself?

    There is one and only one proper function of government. It is to protect and defend individual rights from initiation of force by others, INCLUDING any and all of its own initiation of force. There is no room for violation of individual rights in that singular proper function of government. Every other function that government takes on is a violation of that one singular proper function. Building highways is not part of that proper function. Especially not if it requires the forceful taking other people’s wealth in any form.

    That you can’t think of any other way to do it but by the initiation of force upon individuals simply shows your poverty of thought. Neither you nor I are benefited in the long run by the forced taking of other people’s property no matter what the excuse. If one person’s rights can be violated then anyone’s rights can be. Eventually that condition leads to everyone’s rights being violated. See the situation in the USA today as a case in point. In particular the Kelo v. City of New London decision. If a city wants your property for nearly any reason, it can take it and pretend to compensate you for the taking. Then it can transfer the newly “acquired” property to others on the feeble excuse of raising the tax base.

    Now tell me how safe it is to be governed by something as nebulous and ephemeral as “public interest”.

  5. “There is one and only one proper function of government. It is to protect and defend individual rights from initiation of force by others, INCLUDING any and all of its own initiation of force. There is no room for violation of individual rights in that singular proper function of government.”

    HORSE NETTLES!

    The government has no duty to protect you.

    Government is needed to enforce contracts. And many other things.

    I appreciate a view toward extremely limited government, but I think you stand alone in your extreme view.

  6. I am unimpressed by your argument from popularity (aka consensus). It carries no weight of truth. My rights to my life and its product exists prior to any so called social contract, prior to any constitution, prior to any public interest, and prior to the existence of any government. That they can be violated is obvious, frequent, and almost ubiquitous does not make said violations proper and fitting for life of men on earth.

    At the very least, the government has the duty not to initiate force against me and thereby violate my rights. If and only if, I initiate force against another or another against me, does it have a duty to act to prohibit further transgression of rights. Otherwise, I would be quite happy if it simply ignored me and left me to my own devices.

    However, you raise an interesting issue. Our current governments hold they have no duty to protect particular person but, at the same time, are trying to take away the means we individually have of protecting ourselves. If I am permitted to protect myself and my property by any means necessary, the government can simply go suck rocks for all I care. However, it is important and valuable for everyone that the initiation of force be placed under rational control. Today’s situation doesn’t even come close to that happening with the government at all levels being the primary source of such violations. Non governmental thugs are in an extreme minority and can easily be dealt with if we don’t have to fight government thugs bent on doing exactly the same things to us.

  7. In my neck of the woods, not too long ago, they put in a new stretch of interstate. The government had to grab farmland to do it. Lots of those involved, let’s call them rent-seekers, or maybe extortioners, threatened the entire route by attempting to block its passage through their property. As you’d expect, many of these disputes wound up in court. As a result, there were construction delays and lawyers to pay, and the route wound up costing nearly double what was originally planned.

    Okay, okay, I know about the cost-overrun game, don’t bother me when I’m on a roll.

    There’s times when individual rights have to give way for collective needs. The collective also reaps vast rewards from giving way to individual rights. The dividing line between individual and collective rights should be strong, and nearly impossible to cross. When it comes to Keystone, patriots should make way. With just compensation of course.

Comments are closed.