| | I went with "No. The current site is fine as it is." for these reasons:
I think using eminent domain for ANY purpose is wrong, and that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to explicitly forbid this practice, and apply this prohibition to lower levels of government. Taking someone's private property without their consent, and handing them compensation that is less than they value the property at, is predicated on the notion that citizens should be altruistic sacrificers of things they value highly for things they value less.
And I did not check the box "No. The honored dead would be shocked if they knew." because I did not know the people on that particular flight. I do not know their views on eminent domain. But, statistically speaking, there is no reason to believe that these citizens were not a statistically representative cross-sample of that portion of the populace that can afford a plane ticket, mostly drawn from Blue states, which means that the majority of these passengers were probably statists who support an expansive view of eminent domain and support the Kelo vs. New London SCOTUS decision.
And even if you limit the phrase "honored dead" to just those passengers who fought back, and not the passengers who shirked from the conflict, it is doubtful these heroic or desperate figures were all opponents of eminent domain -- stone cold statists can act heroically in an emergency, as one of my state's U.S. Senators, Daniel Inouye, is living proof of.
In fact, altruistic sacrificers arguably might be over-represented compared to the general populace among, say, Medal of Honor recipients, as people who sacrifice their lives for the sake of their comrades might be likely to do so because they hold their own life as lower than the lives of others, while Objectivists would likely tend to be over-represented among the survivors of emergencies.
Would be interesting research to conduct, anyway.
|
|
