> This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. I beg to differ. > (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that yo

> This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. I beg to differ. > (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse). That's more akin to seizing than not. > The article sets up strawmen, like the politicians who denounce property rights, without ever quoting any politicians as actually denouncing property rights. You can't be serious. What about the politicians that want higher taxes? That's a violation of property rights. What about the bailout? What about net neutrality? What about the "socialist" Bernie Sanders? The problem with this particular case, as with the ones that I just mentioned, is that they are premised on the idea that it's OK to sacrifice somebody for the good of "society" (i.e., someone else). Frankly, human sacrifice is barbaric.