Socienics

Most people want freedom for themselves and for everyone else to be controlled.

You and I can argue this with liberals until we're blue in the face, but in general they don't believe government should be treated as corrupt first. They believe government should be treated as ethical first, and proof must be made before it is shown to be corrupt.

This isn't always true - the DOMA == fascism thing is an obvious counter-example. But most of the time, it seems like liberals see the government as extensions to the body of voters. That is to say: Government isn't a large organization of selfish individuals elected/appointed to represent us, Government is a pure expression of the will of the people.

And therefore, who can claim it is corrupt? That would obviously mean that you and I and every other voter is corrupt.

I've seen this enough times - where a liberal says 'We are the government', and then goes on to defend some statist act/law/ruling that I believe this is the philosophical point upon which they and I differ.

John,

The problem is, that "we" are the government. If "I" have a problem with what "we" are doing, then "I" have two choices. I can try to change the "we" through legal or extra-legal means, or I can drop out of the "we" altogether. But regardless of my choice, the "we" still has the power - that is its nature. What you are doing, and I often do as well, is complaining about what "we" are doing. This is a form of trying to change what "we" are doing, but to be honest, its a pretty weak attempt. The truth is, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Um, the Kelo decision was just a court decision. A pretty easy one at that. It was only a question of constitutional interpretation about what "public use" in the clause regarding "eminent domain" means. It didn't change the status quo and it certainly didn't grant any new power to the government.

So the subject line could be how "eminent domain in general is like eugenics", but the SCOTUS wasn't exercising any faith in government, but was just refraining to overturn a government action simply because the action disgusted them.

The whole Kelo case is blowing apart all claims of wanting a non-activist judiciary that libertarians and conservatives have been making for decades. You want a supreme court that will always rule to limit government power, and don't care about whether they follow the constitution in particular.

[quote]Um, the Kelo decision was just a court decision. A pretty easy one at that. It was only a question of constitutional interpretation about what "public use" in the clause regarding "eminent domain" means. It didn't change the status quo and it certainly didn't grant any new power to the government.[/quote]

But see, for whatever reason when the Supreme Court rules on a case, it somehow becomes law. Otherwise, why in the world are people on both the left and the right gearing up to dunk Bush's Supreme Court nominee into a fiery hot tarpit if they don't like his/her position on issues?