KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

I am going to come right out and say it: I DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. There. Done. Let's move on.

I am against the construction of this pipeline. Here are the reasons:

-I think it utilized eminent domain to purchase the land upon which it will be constructed.
-I think it received some subsidy, either directly or indirectly, from the federal and state governments.

Both are unconfirmed, but not unreasonable assumptions. Eminent domain is known for being used in large-scale infrastructure projects. Energy companies are known to have received subsidies for constructing power plants and building/maintaining other types of infrastructure.

Another thing: There are no real environmental or economic concerns. As far as I can tell, none of the environmental concerns are substantiated and the economic effects on the macro-economy can almost only be beneficial long-term. Another pipeline would be great. But my better judgement tells me that I shouldn't compromise on my principles. So here it goes:

Why is eminent domain bad?

It's only bad if you think innocent people should be allowed to keep their stuff if they want to keep their stuff. The Nickelodeon-esque example is of a granny who is retired and collecting social security, pension, and any other form of retirement checks, enjoying her reverse-mortgage on her family home that has been with her for the good years and the bad years, and hopefully will be with her to her deathbed.

This is a property rights issue. The property owner (granny) may NOT want to sell the land to anyone for any cost for reasons that are purely subjective and, quite frankly, none of our business. We should probably leave the property owner alone. Perhaps we offer him or her lots of money. Perhaps much more money than their land is actually worth at book value. They still say no. Most people would give up and go home now. As we've said, this is really none of our business and we should respect their sovereignty.

Except of course, the property owner's land is everyone's concern. It says so in the Bill of Rights that we can take any land for "public use" if "just compensation" is offered. Who determines what "just" compensation is or what "public" use constitutes? Well let's just say we can say what those are for a second.

Granny still doesn't want to sell. This clearly violates her property rights. But she did agree to the Constitution when she signed it... I mean, when her ancestor signed it... I mean when her ancestor's politician voted on it... or against it... well, democracy. Just know that your rights go away when a majority says they do.

I don't agree with this. Lysander Spooner laid out some great arguments on why the Constituion has no authority in his essay "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority." So I'm going to say that you, the reader, decided to read the essay that was linked and have concluded that the constitution does indeed have no authority over any citizen that does not expressly consent to it.

So now that that is out of the way, granny's rights are being violated. Eminent domain is bad because you don't want to violate granny. Please. It's rude and equivalent to theft. People go to jail for that.

And Subsidies?

Recipients of stolen goods do not deserve said stolen goods. They are stolen. We've already gone into why in my first post.

What does the dog have to do with it?

The dog is your regular hard-working american. The glasses are the the blinders of state promises delineated by promises of majesty and progress that would result in these projects that utilize eminent domain. The cement is sealing our morals that we threw away to justify the atrocity that is eminent domain.