Kelo Day

This isn't as much fun as Anarchy Day, but is a good reason to celebrate anarchy. Kelo Day marks the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo Decision that allows government more leeway for stealing..... I mean "eminent domain" (cough).

I have written before that eminent domain is a disgusting act of theft-by-government. This is an important issue to keep in mind, and refuse to excuse. I wrote this when I began blogging:

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government. I realize this is a
long-established practice, but it is still wrong. If you or I desperately want a
certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find
another piece of land. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality. Government
should not own land, much less steal it. There is no such thing as "the common
good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

Here is some information I received about Kelo Day:

You may have read about one of the Institute for Justice's (IJ)
historic Supreme Court cases called Kelo v. New London, in which a
homeowner, Susette Kelo, held out against a private developer seeking to turn
her home into debris by way of eminent domain. The court ruled in favor of
New London, and paved the way for property rights of individuals to be
substantially and absurdly quashed in the twenty-first
century.

This Monday is the third anniversary for the Supreme
Court's infamous decision. For the anniversary, Susette Kelo is hoping
that those who strongly oppose eminent domain support the IJ in its effort to
end eminent domain abuse. You can help support this powerful
message by donating to the Institute for Justice, and help curtail the
incidence of eminent domain abuse, which in the past five years
alone included over 10,000 cases.

To donate or to view more
information, check out www.ij.org/keloday

And then also:

The lawyer in the Kelo case argued the wrong argument and that is why Mrs. Kelo
lost her case and walked away with a pittance. If the case had been centered
upon just compensation per the Monongahela Navigation Company case, she would
have greatly benefitted financially from the transaction.

Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312
(1893)
“What amount of compensation for each separate use of any particular
property may be charged is sometimes fixed by the statute which gives authority
for the creation of the property, sometimes determined by what it is reasonably
worth and sometimes, if it is purely private property, devoted only to private
uses, the matter rests arbitrarily with the will of the
owner.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/148/312/case.html