What doesn't make sense is the idea that planning, budgeting and construction can take place before everyone has agreed to go along with the proposed outcome. No matter what the individuals do, if there's money on the side of construction, they're getting thrown out. And the idea that the government can trump individual rights, whether by law or bribery...I mean, compensation, seems a bit disrespectful. Or contradictory.
Kinda makes you want to rethink that whole private property thing from the beginning.
Still not sure why, in this particular case, the owners won't "sell". I also don't understand why the government doesn't just say ok, suit yourself, we'll build around you. Is there some kind of guarantee that there has to be access to the property? Or can't they just remove this one tiny segment from the construction? Build over and around them?
It's kind of cute:
What's really interesting to me about this article, or rather, the fact that the BBC News published this article, is that it follows well on the path of China's recent move to protect private property rights through legislation. Is this the West beckoning the Chinese into our economic structure, a seduction to capitalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment