Jacob Sullum twits the Times for applauding property seizures from the comfort of property the state seized for them.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|7.1.05 @ 1:01PM|#
"How free would The New York Times be if people could occupy its offices at will?"
Sounds good to me - anybody up for a trip to the Register of Deeds there so we can see if a Public Use / Tax Deed has been recorded on that property in last hundred years or so? I wouldn't mind pitching a tent in their office, maybe having a cookout...
|7.1.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Hail Seizers!
Great title, Love it.
|7.1.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Wow! I'll bet the NY Times is just reeling.
|7.1.05 @ 8:56PM|#
A large corporation apologizing for a ruling that benefits large corporations. Gee, I'm shocked! One could try to find a finer nuance here and throw around words like "liberal" and "leftist" and "conservative", but excuse the ad homnium as I just apply Occam's Razor here.
What I don't get it is why those on the left without corporate affiliation support it. All I can conclude is that they are dumber than a box of bricks.
Also the utilitarian arguments in the NYT piece are a joke and their bias toward taxes bases and jobs (crappy jobs generally) over small property ownership is unjustified even if judged on a purely economic basis I'd say.
|7.5.05 @ 2:03PM|#
While you're tweaking the Times for putting "property rights" in scare quotes, could you take a look at your practice of doing the same thing to the phrase "public interest?"
You certainly don't demonstrate the same skepticism that jobs and tax base are in the public's interest when the mechanism that will, allegedly, bring them about is a reduction in marginal tax rates, environmental regulation, or red tape.
Yet when it's the construction of a larger building for a major employer that will create or retain jobs, you can't bring yourself to admit that jobs and local spending by the people who will hold them provide a public benefit.