>> Like he is all for individual property rights, unless he wants to build a stadium on your land. Then he is all for condemning the land for the common good.
What a stupid remark. A government's right of eminent domain is a fundamental principle of progress. One which is totally essential. Condemnation is in no way inconsistent with "individual property rights". Individual property rights are subserviant to eminent domain, and must be for orderly progress to exist. The law permits condemnation because our legal system, FROM ITS INCEPTION, has recognized that you can't have "individual property rights" getting in the way of progress for the "common good", as you say.
Bush was managing a sports franchise which was playing in one of the most run-down stadiums in the league. It was certainly appropriate for him to pursue the new stadium, and to make it clear to Arlington that "if you want us here, you're going to have to help us make it happen". If the authorities didn't want to condemn the property, they need not have have done so -- but they could see that it was to Arlington's advantage to have done so. This is the way stadiums all over the country have been built, and many of them could not have been without the leadership of a strong individual accompanied by the local government's right of eminent domain. Obviously, it turned out to be a good decision for all involved.
He is all for the free market, unless he wants to suck up to a voting block that wants a tariff on steel imports.
A "free market" does not imply freedom to the extent that other countries can "dump" their steel here, causing our steel companies to go into bankruptcy, destroying jobs here. I don't know if the decision was a right one or a wrong one (it may have provided some temporary relief), but it is not inconsistent with the notion of free trade. |
