Keystone Pipeline Thwarted by Individual Property Rights, For Now

Last week, a judge in Nebraska

ruled a law that permitted the Keystone XL pipeline to run
through the state was invalid. The Public Service Commission, not
the governor, should have made the decision to approve the
pipeline’s route, which required the use of eminent domain to force
some local property owners to hand over their land to the company
building the pipeline.

Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner points out that
eminent domain is not part of the discussion for the left or the
right,
and that in fact:

To many conservatives, Keystone opposition reeks of
unyielding liberal opposition to development, a stance
conservatives and libertarians deride as NIMBY: Not In My Back
Yard.

But here’s the thing: NIMBYism is problematic from a
free-enterprise view only if it’s used metaphorically. If somebody
else is trying to build something literally
through your back yard, shouldn’t you have the
right to say no?

And from north to south, that’s exactly what Keystone XL’s owners
are doing: working with state governments to use eminent domain and
force reluctant landowners to allow the pipeline through their
property.

Read Carney’s entire column
here. The apparent indifference of many mainstream liberals and
conservatives to the property rights aspect of the Keystone
pipeline issue betrays a lack of interest in protecting property
rights. Politicians and “activists” with ideas premised on the
power of the state to advance their agendas, after all, tend to
deploy the language of rights only when the application of those
rights fits their specific value system. The unequivocal rights of
individuals to own and control their property, and individual
rights in general, are not politically expedient ones for coveters
of state power.

More Reason on Keystone here and on eminent
domain here.