3 ms·
I don't know, I think eminent domain is in the Constitution because the founders knew that was an extremely dangerous power of the government to just take thing
by slg 4y ago
I don't know, I think eminent domain is in the Constitution because the founders knew that was an extremely dangerous power of the government to just take things by force from the populous. There is no Constitutional requirement that our leaders, elected or not, have to be truthful with us 100% of the time.
It is the difference between action and speech. Action is generally more dangerous. It is a little weird to me that in this discussion of the dangers of the government limiting speech, some people are more fearful of the government's speech than the government's action. It is a lot easier to simply ignore what the government says than try to hold on to my property when the men with guns come knocking at my door.
- int_19h 4y agoYes, it is an extremely dangerous power. It is also, unfortunately, sometimes necessary, especially in emergencies. I'm generally strongly opposed to eminent domain when it's used for "economic development" and other such goals, but COVID was a textbook example where it was warranted. And as for the difference between "speech" and "action", what the released emails show is that the government didn't stop at speech - it used Twitter as a proxy for censorship, and censorship is an action.