Two words: Eminent Domain

But of course, our conservative friends do not typically have a problem with this practice because they adhere to the same quicksand foundation of rights that liberals do – – a belief that governments grant rights as they see fit.  In this case, conservatives know eminent domain is allowed in the Constitution, thus it is moral and proper in their minds.

Forget the fact these are private companies with private profits and private use…the “greater good will be served”!  Such is the hypocritical nature of our conservatives whose eyebrows twitch with confusion on how they really feel about Kelo, but they know deep in their marrow that the Keystone Pipeline is good for the US of effin-A!

There is one reason why you should oppose the proposed $5.3 billion Keystone  XL Pipeline. And it has nothing to do with “green religionists,” as The Wall  Street Journal calls the opposition in today’s paper.

Instead, it has everything to do with a foreign oil company using U.S.  government power to force Americans off their land in the name of “eminent  domain.” It has everything to do with putting a 78-year-old grandmother in jail,  pepper-spraying protesters and using other bullying tactics that would make the  Mafia proud.

This pipeline would connect the oil and gas producers in Western Canada with  various U.S. endpoints. There are all kinds of economic benefits for a new  pipeline. You’ve probably heard about the 16,000 jobs, for instance. I’m not  disputing the supposed benefits.

What I don’t like is the eminent domain abuse. In fact, I don’t like eminent  domain at all. The fact that a government can force you off your own property  shows that property rights are not secure, even in the U.S. As the great  economist Murray Rothbard put it:

“Certainly no one can say that the inviolability of private property is  protected by the government. And when government confers this power on a  particular business, it is conferring upon it the special privilege of taking  property by force.”

The latter is what’s happening here. There have been many eminent domain  actions against property owners in Texas, for example. One of the most famous is  the case of the 78-year-old grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild. Police arrested her  and threw her in jail for a night. Why? She was trespassing — on her own farm! A  Texas court condemned the property at TransCanada’s request after she refused to  sign over her property. They seized it anyway.

There are many more such stories. All you have to do is Google “TransCanada  Pipeline” and “eminent domain.” You will find a long trail of news stories  covering the struggles of property owners against the thuggish oil company and  its bullying government henchmen. You’ll find the pepper-spraying protesters,  threatening letters and other nastiness. And you’ll find TransCanada stealing a  lot of property.

Here is an excerpt from an article from the Austin-based Statesman:

“The pipeline’s southern segment doesn’t require an international permit. It  crosses about 800 tracts of land in Texas. According to The Associated Press,  TransCanada has claimed eminent domain to condemn more than 100 of those tracts — an unusually high condemnation percentage (about 12.5%) for a pipeline project  in Texas.”

Proponents of the pipeline overlook all this.

Even The Wall Street Journal, in today’s editorial “No More Keystone  Excuses,” doesn’t even mention the word “eminent domain” at all. Instead, it  paints the opposition as a bunch of loony lefties who “want the world economy to  run on windmills and solar panels.”

Shame on The Wall Street Journal.

Shame on them for saying nothing about the ranchers and farmers who don’t  want to give up their land. I can’t imagine a more American cause than the  simple defense of someone’s property.

And don’t bother writing me emails telling me all the good the pipeline will  do. I don’t care. I don’t care if 99 people benefit and one guy gets the shaft.  I’m for that one guy. What is liberty if not for the minority against the  majority? It is nothing. If a minority of one cannot make his legitimate rights  stand up against the onslaught of majority opinion, then those rights are a  legal fiction and there are no rights for anyone.

I also don’t care how unintrusive the pipeline may seem to you. If a property  owner doesn’t want to grant the right-of-way, then that is the end of the  discussion. It doesn’t matter if the pipeline is largely hidden or takes up only  a tiny percentage of a ranch or farm.

In my view, the government should have nothing to do with the pipeline.

If TransCanada wants to build a pipeline, then it should be able to build  that pipeline — provided it finds other consenting parties to grant it the  required easements. If not, then too bad. That is the price of liberty. The oil  will have to find some other way to market, or perhaps never will.

And here, at least, the Journal and I can agree. As the editorial  says:

“If the Alberta oil doesn’t flow south to America via the Keystone XL, it  will flow west to China via other pipelines or rail. It will also flow to the  Gulf Coast by other means, including pipelines and rail to East Coast ports, and  then via tankers in the Atlantic and around Florida.”

That is true. The oil will get out. There is too much money at stake.

Sincerely,

Chris Mayer

Original article posted on Laissez-Faire  Today

Read more:  Why You Should Oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline http://dailyreckoning.com/why-you-should-oppose-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/#ixzz2NegF65hF