The ACLU attacked Prop. 98 for seeking to ”eliminate rent control,” and ”restricting the government’s power.” Imagine that! Restricting the government’s power! That’s what most civil liberties guarantees do, after all: restrict government power. But the American Civil Liberties Union doesn’t have much to do with civil liberties, anymore, unless the beneficiaries are left-wing constituencies, like alleged terrorists.

While the ACLU was busy claiming that banning rent control is somehow a threat to civil liberties, it was also fabricating many new rights out of thin air: such as the alleged “right” of swastika-wearing neo-Nazis to force restaurants like the Alpine Village Inn to serve them (in a case described by Professor David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy); an alleged “right” for illegal alien employees to demand that their citizen co-workers not say derogatory things about them, even outside their presence (see Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System); and an alleged ”right” for one Massachusetts man to perform oral sex on another man while on a public stage.

The ACLU in California is a “vigorous proponent of hate speech regulations,” notes law professor David Bernstein, and its Massachusetts chapter supports campus speech codes, ignoring that pesky First Amendment (which was, after all, written by dead white males — the ACLU is a big supporter of racial quotas, unsuccessfully arguing in Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997), that minorities have a constitutional right to racial preferences that overrides state constitutional equal-protection provisions banning all racial discrimination). A prominent ACLU lawyer in Massachusetts, Nancy Gertner, argued that rape law should be redefined so that mere consent to sex is not enough, claiming that sex should only be allowed after express, explicit permission of the sort that precedes a medical operation.

Their primary agends is an assortment of radical changes to existing laws that affect them, without going through the legislature. They would eliminate zoning, environmental laws and anything that conceivably decreases the value of property.

I support all those measures. Glad y’all who support some property rights have prop 99 to fall back on, though.

Their primary agends is an assortment of radical changes to existing laws that affect them, without going through the legislature. They would eliminate zoning, environmental laws and anything that conceivably decreases the value of property.

Separate issues should not be combined like this, where voters can easily see the hot-button issue but are less likely to see ALL the issues.

There’s lots of indignation on the net about these various propositions- search for “property rights”.

Credit goes to the backers of the Kelo-only proposition.

But to argue that stealing somebody’s wallet is the same as telling them that they can only put $100 into it instead of $120 is not logically sustainable.

Taking a wallet with 20 bucks in it and taking 20 dollars from a wallet with 120 bucks in it are the same thing. Theft is theft. You just think one type of theft (rent control) is justified while the other (eminent domain abuse) is not. I disagree.

It’s not even a limitation on the use that you make of the building, because you can choose to operate the business nonetheless or choose not to own a rental property at all.

By this logic you could choose to dodge eminent domain abuse by not owning any property at all.

Kelo permits thievery; rent control is merely one component of use restriction within our economy.

Rent control is also thievery. Both eminent domain abuse and rent control deny property owners the right to do what they want with (and get full value for) their property.

You can make a cute phrase, but cute doesn’t cut it if you don’t have a point underneath it.

Basically, this will allow, for example, Haliburton to buy another Presidency and, if it wants, make sure that Californians can pay hundreds of dollars for a gallon of water.

Is Haliburton going to buy all the 7-11s, too? Because you can buy a gallon of water there for 2 dollars.

I would hesitate before casually labeling the ACLU as anti-property-rights in general and on this issue in particular. One of the areas in which the corporate Right has been spectacularly effective has been wrapping up anti-public, anti-free-market and, anti small business agendas in freedom-based and market-based language. It would be entirely within their normal behaviour to put a poison pill into an anti-Kelo initiative; it appears that they have.

Even a cursory review of the Proposition 98 shows that it also “prohibits rent control and similar measures”. What on earth does that have to do with the licensed theft sanctioned by Kelo and the takings clause which is its main component? Kelo permits thievery; rent control is merely one component of use restriction within our economy.

Far more significantly 98′s current wording may be a threat to all land use regulation. (Do you want a chemical factory next to your house? Your child’s school?)

Further, one website correctly notes that “Section 19(b)(3)(ii) of the Constitution is added to prohibit transfer property rights for the `consumption of natural resources’ to a public agency. This would limit California’s ability to implement projects to ensure a safe, stable supply of drinking water, or other projects that protect or utilize natural resources.” Basically, this will allow, for example, Haliburton to buy another Presidency and, if it wants, make sure that Californians can pay hundreds of dollars for a gallon of water. Just think of it! All of the corruption of Iraq brought to your doorstep thanks to 98!

The fact that eminent domain in its current form has to go is a no-brainer. How one goes about it is not. If I’m drowning I want a lifejacket thrown to me; giving me exactly that but with an angry adder clinging to it is not helping me.

I can imagine their suppliers aren’t happy, tho, seeing as they have to eat up the price increases since, if they don’t, Wal-Mart won’t buy their product.

I think the point of the article is that Wal-Mart is at least realizing that prices are going up, but they’re doing what they can to change the status quo of the system to make that increase be smaller. Like dealing with the coffee growers more directly, so that the people harmed aren’t the producers, but the people who add drag to the system by taking a cut, or dealing with the local farms to lower the shipping cost, or by conceding to the prepared food manufacturers that they will not decrease their shelf space allocation if they’d reduce their box sizes.

I know there is still the ‘big bad’ Wal-Mart that will send trucks back if they’re charged too much, but I think Wal-Mart does as good a job as any retailer advocating for *both*sides of their clientele: the producers who sell to them, and the customers who buy at their stores.

Use blockquote inside less than and greater than signs (along with the closing slash, of course). :)

Of course! Thanks!

Anywho, Dave, your last paragraph was hilarious.

#10 Nando
I don’t understand why so many people hate Wal-Mart.

Since porn outlets have moved to the internet there just aren’t that many local brick-and-mortar targets left for the leaders of pitch-fork wielding hordes to vent against.

If I seem full of shit, please keep in mind that my opinions are always totally based on irrefutable scientific supporting data, so it would be pointless to argue with me.