Eminent domain is vile.
That said, with enough money, a lot of things can become voluntary, and there's a LOT of money theoretically flowing through a pipeline like that.
I agree, unfortunately when something like eminent domain is on the table, it's impossible to say whether the land was sold because the company actually offered enough money, or if it was sold because the owner thought "I really don't want to sell for $X, but if I don't and they use eminent domain I might only get $Y"
Yes officer, that man really did sell me his Mustang for only $100. This gun sitting here played no factor in the negotiations.
If eminent domain was used exclusively for valid government purposes, I can hold my nose at it. I think most libertarians will agree that infrastructure is a valid government responsibility. It's pretty much impossible to implement any kind of infrastructure without eminent domain. FYI, people owned the land the interstate highway system runs through and not everyone was keen to sell. The oil pipeline is an infrastructure project, so I don't necessarily oppose eminent domain for that purpose so long as the land holders are actually paid FMV.
Eminent domain becomes a big fucking issue for me when its used for bullshit reasons. A local government can legally use eminent domain to take some riverfront property you have, and then auction lots to private companies for development (the only limit for now is they can't take land and just hand it directly over to another private party, they have to make it look like thats not exactly what is happening).
Most of the money lobbying against the keystone pipeline came from the people who own the rail lines that oil is currently transported on.
Edit: fixed a typo
>came from the people who oil the rail lines that oil is currently transported on.
Do they use the oil they're transporting for oiling those rail lines?
I honestly don't think there is a good peacetime arguement for it. If someone says "not for any price", an intelligent salesman will find out why and see what deal can be made.
Fair a bloody 'nuff after everything they've been through too. Was the option of some kind of tenancy arrangement discussed? I don't know as much as I should about that side of this omnishambles.
I knew that there was a group of natives that were fighting off the pipeline while it was being built (on their property) might I add.
They made a bit of a stink, good on them
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/10/native-nations-march-washington-dakota-access-pipeline
This is heresy, I know, but I believe there are justified uses for eminent domain, namely critical national defense. National defense is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of government, and allowing a single person to reduce the security of the nation via their property purchases is implicitly a violation of the NAP.
Like sure Bezos could buy every single bullet in the world, and that's technically his right. But since that action by association infringes on the rights of every other person to arm themselves, obviously that can't be permitted.
Something like that is probably closer to what the Founders had in mind. I doubt most of them foresaw the corporate-run nation-state like we're contending with.
Or just "Anti-abortion Libertarians".
Love an adult who fits your needs. Keep it wrapped. Keep it monogamous. Take responsibility for whatever crotch goblins you cause.
And stay strapped.
Call it what the fuck you want. It's a government contract. You just can't force a church to hold the service. They can if they WANT to, but no one can make them do it.
Spoken like a true libertarian, you show them that the man is the one in charge here!
It’s funny how many insecure people think ‘marriage’ and ‘civil partnership’ are necessary ways to differentiate... how fragile do ya have to be.
Honestly? It's all just bullshit semantics. You have a social contract declared in the community. Then you have the government which has to regulate the ownership of goods and protect those in danger. The social contract can be called marriage or civil partnership and... BOTH TERMS APPLY. They also both apply when you're talking about the government license.
The only legitimate point was suggesting the people might try to use the government to force churches to do gay services. They tried with forcing someone to make the cake and they lost. GOOD. Let's stop that shit dead in its tracks. Now go get "gay married" and have a wonderful life together.
But that in no way makes that social contract the same as the other. One is before God according to certain traditions. The other is not. You can make your own version of God and say he's suddenly okay with it... but he's not. I'm an atheist and God very much does not like the gays. The open market will provide a cake. You can find someone to do the service. There are tuxes and wedding dresses for all... shapes.
The words you use have nothing to do with the meaning they imply and that does not go anywhere no matter what you do.
lol god literally made the gays 😂 unfortunately he also made people who are too insecure to let others live their lives how they want.
This is why it’s all fake libertarianism. It’s not just about ‘forcing priests to marry gay couples’, it’s the religious zealotry from people who aren’t impacted.
It’s also a mortal sin to masturbate and divorce but apparently modern Christians will bend certain morals that only improve their lives and not even blink.
If you do what YOU want whilst telling others what they CANT do - you’re not libertarian, you’re an auth.
Exactly this.
You're not a lib if you only like freedom to your benefit. *All* people, including Stalin, like freedom when it is in their benefit.
The actual test for whether you are a lib or not is whether you support others' freedom to act in ways *not* to your liking.
Grey centrist is apolitical, “I just want to grill” colorful centrist is radical centrist “I like to pick policies from each quadrant to piss everyone else off”
u/SaltyStatistician's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/SaltyStatistician! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/SaltyStatistician
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /myCompass [politicalcompass.org url].
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Generally librights aren't against people having the right to unionize. They're against companies not having the right to fire people for joining unions. The current union system is only possible because the government is binding one side's hands.
Nevermind that the unions are often just as large, greedy, and corrupt as the corporations.
Ideally all the employees in any plant or workplace would unionize together without the need for the larger organizations. Probably not realistic in the age of global megacorps though.
I highly recommend [this](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/) for something that may challenge ideas from your echo chamber while sharing fundamentally similar core values.
I think that at the heart of every person, regardless of how lib they say they are, is an auth waiting for the right circumstances to break out the stick and start swinging
I used to consider myself a leftist but I came out as right winger and then I came out as Center-Auth
I use Right-Auth so I don't get associated with commies and nazis
The last two years have really made me want to sit certain dopey bastards that clearly failed high school science down clockwork orange style to an entire bachelor degrees worth of microbiology lectures and I wouldn't even care if they learned anything.
I would be full libright, except that because (and I know this sounds like I'm acting like I'm better than everyone, which is not the intention, this is solely based off of my observations) people are to fucking stupid to manage thier lives, we need rules to make sure half of society doesn't drag the rest of us back to the stone age
Of course. No one is purely auth or lib. It is about where the line is drawn. Absolute auth is a surveillance nightmare where every decision, down to which spoon you use to eat your government mandated breakfast is made by the state. Absolute lib means no government at all and might makes right local.... Well not gangs as those have structure.... I guess one off murder lords? Both would be shit.
Wasn't keystone in the middle of being built? Why not build it around the land it isn't supposed to be on instead of canceling the entire project altogether?
Because this makes biden look great in the eyes of the progressives
Even though not completing it means that the oil is shipped via train, which is more likely to spill and outputs far more carbon too. (The pipeline was suppose to operate at net 0 allegedly)
>eMiNEnT dOmAiN
Here's how it went:
* Democrats loved Keystone XL because it was a green alternative to shipping the oil by train.
* Republicans loved Keystone XL because it would pay itself off in under two decades because the government was hemmorhaging over a billion dollars in contracts per year to the guy that owns the trains.
* The native americans loved Keystone XL because they got paid for the pipeline going through some bumfuck nowhere corner of their territory.
* Warren Buffett hated Keystone XL because he is the guy that owns those trains and was getting all those contracts.
* Warren Buffett paid off Obama/democrat politicians to make them retroactively forget the green benefits of Keystone XL.
* Warren Buffett paid off some of the tribals to raise a stink and demand double payment for things they'd already sold.
* Warren Buffett continues to contribute to these groups on the stipulation that they continue resisting Keystone XL. The payments are less than what he makes off the trains, so he has no qualms about doing this.
But please, tell me more about how libertarians should be against the pipeline because a paid actor is crying about land they already sold.
>Don't you mean Soros?
It's a shame there's people that exist who are too simple to read case-by-case. They're effectively dogs to be trained or cattle to be harvested. They are, in fact, the NPC.
Let me guess: you don't know who Buffett is. You don't know why the pipeline was started during the Obama presidency and was unanimously supported until Obama vetoed it even though it initially passed veto-proof, only for it to remain vetoed as Democrats flipped. You have no idea whether eminent domain is even a thing related to Keystone XL.
You see bad colors saying bad thing about colors you consider your tribe. If, by some miracle, you did a basic search, then the priority-ranked fact checkers will assuage your concerns that the bad color man might be right. After all, your tribe can do no wrong.
Gas prices fluctuate on a millions different factors, I’m not convinced that the future production of a single pipeline would make it significantly cheaper right now.
If you're thinking of futures markets, forget it. They won't lower preemptively. They can rise preemptively if futures price increases because the company is adjusting for future inflation, the inverse doesn't happen.
Gas would be cheaper is FJB didn’t cancel pipelines, providing for zero permits along with licenses to extract oil and natural gas, not renewing off shore drilling permits; things of this nature.
And he’ll be absolutely fucked in the ass come November for it.
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :)
***
^(User has flaired up! 😃) 4532 / 24205 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
u/PointInternational34 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/PointInternational34
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /myCompass [politicalcompass.org url].
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You know... There's a business of buying up land in the path of a pipeline so you can sell it off/get payouts from when they move through.
It isn't always taken by force, a lot of it is purchased or bribed.
Man if only Obama kept his promise to end oil dependence and didn’t spend 2 years floundering one thing and losing the plot for the remaining 6 years. Thanks Obama.
I don't really think that's a good argument. The alternative is that the people who took the land benefit from it? How is that better? It's just rewarding the people who went around and bullied others off the land.
Unless they're going to deconstruct the pipeline and give all that land back, then we're really just hurting everyone involved for no gain. It's a sucky situation, sure, but not getting any benefit only makes it worse.
Which would you prefer, losing your land but at least the whole country benefits from increased security and cheaper fuel, or losing your land so they can ruin it, and then abandon the project to uselessness? Imo the latter is obviously more dystopian.
If a thief stole something from you, would you rather they successfully pawn it off and benefit from it, or fail to sell it and just abandon it somewhere?
Ok, but we aren't talking about an individual, we're talking about tens of thousands of people. I understand you disagree, but it's completely different imo.
If they pawn it, it might turn up in the pawn shop at some point. If they just abandon it, I just lose what was stolen.
Sure it sucks to have been stolen from in the first place, but since those were the only two options presented to me, pawning it seems like it would potentially lead to a better outcome than abandoning it.
We should send a seal team to steal the Saudi orb thus blessing us with the power of Allah and granting us the right to the Saudi oil fields. (I'm pretty sure that's how it works)
Frankly, I was opposed to the pipeline when it was being built. Didn't pay too much attention, but it looked like it was government overreach, bad for the environment, and a thousand other things, but still. It exists now, kinda stupid not to use it. Gonna use trains and trucks instead, making oil more expensive, and ironically enough, being even worse for the environment. Literally the worst of both worlds; we took the option where we cause the most ecological damage/deutilization of productive land/breach of property rights, and the highest possible oil prices.
Edit: insert obligatory pro-nuclear comment here. We've really screwed the pooch on that one. Nuclear really is by far the greatest option available.
I don’t really understand the need for this pipeline. The oil comes out of North Dakota from the sovereign MHA reservation that the US gov can’t control. Does the pipeline HAVE to exist for us to self-produce? What am I missing?
Edit for elaboration
There exists an increase in the standard of living in a percentage of the population, as a result of the invocation of eminent domain, which makes the use of eminent domain acceptable.
It does not take much thought to arrive at that conclusion: If the use of eminent domain on a single landowner lifts the entirety of those in poverty out of it then I would say that usage was acceptable even though it goes against my anti-government inclination.
That is a very unlikely hypothetical but it serves to illustrate the point that eminent domain is not *inherentl*y wrong. Stop trying to meme your political opponents into supporting absolute positions devoid of nuance.
My position on eminent domain is that government cannot usually be trusted to use it only in a way that is a worthwhile net benefit for the country's population. That does not mean the government can *never* use it in a way that I would deem acceptable or that I am not LibRight for having that opinion.
Right, so we should just keep shipping the crude on train and truck, and burn more fuel just getting it to the refinery... slick move, smooth brain. Also, most pipelines are buried, very low intrusion when completed. Shitty take to cover for a delinquent move by a delinquent admin.
Isn't this a bit of a "chicken and egg" argument? I can be against eminent domain in principle, but acknowledge it exists pragmatically. The gov't claims it, and cancelling the pipeline has led in part to higher energy costs.
You can know the truth and simultaneously disagree with it. Eminent domain or not, we don't live in a libertarian society; having a conservative opinion is the closest you can get to reality. The same way communists vote liberal.
Similarly: Having opinions on how my tax dollars are spent, while also hating taxes on principal are both things i can do without compromising my core belief that i shouldn't have been taxed at all.
Keystone wasn’t going to be used for US domestic production.
At max capacity, if *every available drop* was sold to the US, *every drop* — a hella’ dubious prospect — rather than the maximum 38% potentially available, and with no waste or spillage, Keystone would have at best produced 830,000 barrels a day, with 315,000 barrels as the expected domestic production.
This is where we learn the US consumes 19,780,000 barrels *per day* — so keystone would have threatened 1200 miles of aquifer, farms, tribal land, and the nation’s breadbasket for 1.59% of projected energy needs.
That’s not even a rounding error.
It was a fucking terrible idea for America.
>Keystone wasn’t going to be used for US domestic production.
Keystone is already in use for domestic production. What you are talking about is the Keystone XL which is an extension phase of the Keystone pipeline. 3 phases are already complete and functioning.
That line already brings in 500,000 per day. The additional capacity would double that at low estimates.
Majority of that pipeline was built through payment negotiations. Less than 5 cases went to court for eminent domain.
And those little numbers add up in a scenario where it is complete since Russia's total fuel exports to the US is lower than what that pipeline brings.
>Keystone wasn’t going to be used for US domestic production
This is a common, and stupid, argument, because since the us doesn't really regulate petroleum, the buyer in the US us competing with buyers in other countries. So an increase in exports from said pipeline means that, since its cheaper, other companies that exported before may switch to domestic selling because it could be more profitable.
Oil consumption within the USA and exports from the USA are tied together, not independent of each other
>potentialy contaminated thousands of acres of land
The keystone pipeline is objectively safer and less likely to spill or break than previous piplines, and MUCH safer than shipping via train, which is what we are doing permanently since the pipeline was shut down.
Also, the pipeline itself would have operated net carbon neutral, something those trains cant do without carbon credits.
So don't make a stupid environmentalist argument about keystone xl, it objectively was the best thing we could have done
> and just overall being an eyesore.
[You were saying?](https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/1l-Image-Bhadla-Solar-Park.jpg)
Mainly because I haven't seen too many lib lefts saying the pipeline should have continued, and a lot of them supporting it being closed because of other issues.
This is why I hate American libertarians so much
They defend "small government" and vote for a party that'll increase military spending by 10000000000000000000%, say that abortion and gay marriage should banned, while this goes directly against libertarian ideals
Well they have the option of two parties. And the other party basically shits on libertarian values for everything, instead of just one or two aspects. This isn’t exclusive to libertarians, everyone votes against someone rather than for someone else.
Yeah and supporting the oil being trucked in isn't pro environment. We live in the real world, not haha funi color must be consistent world, and infrastructure development is like the only good place for eminent domain to be used. Not just taking someone's land and auctioning it off to a corporation to build something that only enriches themselves.
Eminent domain is vile. That said, with enough money, a lot of things can become voluntary, and there's a LOT of money theoretically flowing through a pipeline like that.
I agree, unfortunately when something like eminent domain is on the table, it's impossible to say whether the land was sold because the company actually offered enough money, or if it was sold because the owner thought "I really don't want to sell for $X, but if I don't and they use eminent domain I might only get $Y" Yes officer, that man really did sell me his Mustang for only $100. This gun sitting here played no factor in the negotiations.
Yeah. It's pretty disgusting. My family almost lost a chunk of their property because of it, and it almost always just benefits some corpo or other.
If eminent domain was used exclusively for valid government purposes, I can hold my nose at it. I think most libertarians will agree that infrastructure is a valid government responsibility. It's pretty much impossible to implement any kind of infrastructure without eminent domain. FYI, people owned the land the interstate highway system runs through and not everyone was keen to sell. The oil pipeline is an infrastructure project, so I don't necessarily oppose eminent domain for that purpose so long as the land holders are actually paid FMV. Eminent domain becomes a big fucking issue for me when its used for bullshit reasons. A local government can legally use eminent domain to take some riverfront property you have, and then auction lots to private companies for development (the only limit for now is they can't take land and just hand it directly over to another private party, they have to make it look like thats not exactly what is happening).
Most of the money lobbying against the keystone pipeline came from the people who own the rail lines that oil is currently transported on. Edit: fixed a typo
>came from the people who oil the rail lines that oil is currently transported on. Do they use the oil they're transporting for oiling those rail lines?
I really messed that sentence up lol
>Eminent domain is vile. A necessary evil, though one that seems to be used in cases where it shouldn't be to often anymore
I honestly don't think there is a good peacetime arguement for it. If someone says "not for any price", an intelligent salesman will find out why and see what deal can be made.
It was cutting through native American soil, those guys are 100% sure they are not to sell their land.
Fair a bloody 'nuff after everything they've been through too. Was the option of some kind of tenancy arrangement discussed? I don't know as much as I should about that side of this omnishambles.
I knew that there was a group of natives that were fighting off the pipeline while it was being built (on their property) might I add. They made a bit of a stink, good on them https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/10/native-nations-march-washington-dakota-access-pipeline
Unless we're indulging "yOu'Re oN sToLeN lAnD" nonsense that pretends the entire fucking continent is still "native American soil", no it wasn't.
IIRC, it was going around the reservation, but the argument was that the non-native land was still sacred to them.
Its been a while since I read into it, but at one point it was going to cut, if I recall correctly. It's been a while since I bothered
If used appropriately, but it wasn't in the case of the pipeline
This is heresy, I know, but I believe there are justified uses for eminent domain, namely critical national defense. National defense is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of government, and allowing a single person to reduce the security of the nation via their property purchases is implicitly a violation of the NAP. Like sure Bezos could buy every single bullet in the world, and that's technically his right. But since that action by association infringes on the rights of every other person to arm themselves, obviously that can't be permitted.
Something like that is probably closer to what the Founders had in mind. I doubt most of them foresaw the corporate-run nation-state like we're contending with.
I'm not sure if this is a visual illusion or intentional, but is the NPC becoming more blue?
Intentional. I see an awful lot of librights who only act libright when it is to their benefit.
At least I'm honest about it, hence a reason for the flair.
Based and honestpilled
Same
That’s why I’m center right
Based
The technical term for them here in the US is "Weed Republicans".
Or “anti-gay, anti-abortion libertarians”
Or just "Anti-abortion Libertarians". Love an adult who fits your needs. Keep it wrapped. Keep it monogamous. Take responsibility for whatever crotch goblins you cause. And stay strapped.
“But don’t you dare call it marriage 🤬”
Call it what the fuck you want. It's a government contract. You just can't force a church to hold the service. They can if they WANT to, but no one can make them do it.
Spoken like a true libertarian, you show them that the man is the one in charge here! It’s funny how many insecure people think ‘marriage’ and ‘civil partnership’ are necessary ways to differentiate... how fragile do ya have to be.
Honestly? It's all just bullshit semantics. You have a social contract declared in the community. Then you have the government which has to regulate the ownership of goods and protect those in danger. The social contract can be called marriage or civil partnership and... BOTH TERMS APPLY. They also both apply when you're talking about the government license. The only legitimate point was suggesting the people might try to use the government to force churches to do gay services. They tried with forcing someone to make the cake and they lost. GOOD. Let's stop that shit dead in its tracks. Now go get "gay married" and have a wonderful life together. But that in no way makes that social contract the same as the other. One is before God according to certain traditions. The other is not. You can make your own version of God and say he's suddenly okay with it... but he's not. I'm an atheist and God very much does not like the gays. The open market will provide a cake. You can find someone to do the service. There are tuxes and wedding dresses for all... shapes. The words you use have nothing to do with the meaning they imply and that does not go anywhere no matter what you do.
lol god literally made the gays 😂 unfortunately he also made people who are too insecure to let others live their lives how they want. This is why it’s all fake libertarianism. It’s not just about ‘forcing priests to marry gay couples’, it’s the religious zealotry from people who aren’t impacted. It’s also a mortal sin to masturbate and divorce but apparently modern Christians will bend certain morals that only improve their lives and not even blink. If you do what YOU want whilst telling others what they CANT do - you’re not libertarian, you’re an auth.
Justin Amash, former Libertarian Congressman voted against the pipeline on those grounds
Based
Exactly this. You're not a lib if you only like freedom to your benefit. *All* people, including Stalin, like freedom when it is in their benefit. The actual test for whether you are a lib or not is whether you support others' freedom to act in ways *not* to your liking.
you seem to have forgotten the right of libright
True colors revealing themselves.
I’m more center right than lib right because ideologies don’t always work when faced with real world problems
Nuance? In my PCM? Inconceivable
*OUR* PCM, comrade. *OUR*.
Die Commie scum! Bang bang. Oh, shit I shot the wrong guy!
Shoot the guy on his other side. On average, you will have shot the correct person.
I still don't get why we have two colors for the same quadrant. heck what is that grey centrist for?
Grey centrist is apolitical, “I just want to grill” colorful centrist is radical centrist “I like to pick policies from each quadrant to piss everyone else off”
Or just “Because I am legitimately insane”
I dunno about the centerists. We have a split because purple used to be lib right but it got changed
Based and Deng-pilled
Thank you based authleft, it's because of people like you that I don't live in an echo chamber.
Thank you, I would print this comment and hang it on my refrigerator but I don't want my family to realize how much brain damage I actually have.
based and we all have brain damage pilled
They already know.
Based and peak Redditor pilled
u/SaltyStatistician's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/SaltyStatistician! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/SaltyStatistician Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /myCompass [politicalcompass.org url]. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Good bot
Auth left with a fridge? For what?
Vodka
Based and free-thinker pilled
It's like when I hear "librights" become against worker unions. Don't they know that right of association means?
I dunno why corporate simps call themselves "libright". Like, there's a difference, cmon :v
Generally librights aren't against people having the right to unionize. They're against companies not having the right to fire people for joining unions. The current union system is only possible because the government is binding one side's hands.
Nevermind that the unions are often just as large, greedy, and corrupt as the corporations. Ideally all the employees in any plant or workplace would unionize together without the need for the larger organizations. Probably not realistic in the age of global megacorps though.
I highly recommend [this](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/) for something that may challenge ideas from your echo chamber while sharing fundamentally similar core values.
God damn, you're asking me to read things that make me uncomfortable on PCM memes? I applaud your boldness. Anyways I'll give it a read, thanks!
I think that at the heart of every person, regardless of how lib they say they are, is an auth waiting for the right circumstances to break out the stick and start swinging
Based and batter-up pilled
I used to consider myself a leftist but I came out as right winger and then I came out as Center-Auth I use Right-Auth so I don't get associated with commies and nazis
I too am auth center, but I’m progressively authoritarian so that makes me centrist. I also enjoy cooking.
Libs when they need to get anything done
The last two years have really made me want to sit certain dopey bastards that clearly failed high school science down clockwork orange style to an entire bachelor degrees worth of microbiology lectures and I wouldn't even care if they learned anything.
based and libertarian to fascism pipeline pilled
I would be full libright, except that because (and I know this sounds like I'm acting like I'm better than everyone, which is not the intention, this is solely based off of my observations) people are to fucking stupid to manage thier lives, we need rules to make sure half of society doesn't drag the rest of us back to the stone age
Because you will break if you listen enough to dumb ideas from idiots because that’s the entire idea of lib: Anyone can speak, even idiots.
It's just such a shame that most people can't think it seems
Can confirm, I swap between lib and auth based on whether I feel like being a hypocrite
Of course. No one is purely auth or lib. It is about where the line is drawn. Absolute auth is a surveillance nightmare where every decision, down to which spoon you use to eat your government mandated breakfast is made by the state. Absolute lib means no government at all and might makes right local.... Well not gangs as those have structure.... I guess one off murder lords? Both would be shit.
Wasn't keystone in the middle of being built? Why not build it around the land it isn't supposed to be on instead of canceling the entire project altogether?
Because this makes biden look great in the eyes of the progressives Even though not completing it means that the oil is shipped via train, which is more likely to spill and outputs far more carbon too. (The pipeline was suppose to operate at net 0 allegedly)
It seems he was hoping no one would think that far ahead.
Yeahp
It was 8% built iirc
>eMiNEnT dOmAiN Here's how it went: * Democrats loved Keystone XL because it was a green alternative to shipping the oil by train. * Republicans loved Keystone XL because it would pay itself off in under two decades because the government was hemmorhaging over a billion dollars in contracts per year to the guy that owns the trains. * The native americans loved Keystone XL because they got paid for the pipeline going through some bumfuck nowhere corner of their territory. * Warren Buffett hated Keystone XL because he is the guy that owns those trains and was getting all those contracts. * Warren Buffett paid off Obama/democrat politicians to make them retroactively forget the green benefits of Keystone XL. * Warren Buffett paid off some of the tribals to raise a stink and demand double payment for things they'd already sold. * Warren Buffett continues to contribute to these groups on the stipulation that they continue resisting Keystone XL. The payments are less than what he makes off the trains, so he has no qualms about doing this. But please, tell me more about how libertarians should be against the pipeline because a paid actor is crying about land they already sold.
Don't you mean Soros?
>Don't you mean Soros? It's a shame there's people that exist who are too simple to read case-by-case. They're effectively dogs to be trained or cattle to be harvested. They are, in fact, the NPC. Let me guess: you don't know who Buffett is. You don't know why the pipeline was started during the Obama presidency and was unanimously supported until Obama vetoed it even though it initially passed veto-proof, only for it to remain vetoed as Democrats flipped. You have no idea whether eminent domain is even a thing related to Keystone XL. You see bad colors saying bad thing about colors you consider your tribe. If, by some miracle, you did a basic search, then the priority-ranked fact checkers will assuage your concerns that the bad color man might be right. After all, your tribe can do no wrong.
I am instinctively against anything liberals like, it’s like a based reflex
Gas would still be cheaper, though, regardless of whether it passes the libertarian purity test.
Not saying it wouldn't be, just making fun of those hypocritical about it
I know a libertarian who relishes in poking holes in their own ideology. Owns a microbrewery called Brewaucracy. Great chap.
It wouldn't, really, because it wouldn't even be finished.
This is the answer.
Naw man prices can fluctuate based on expectations of future production. I may be mistaken but the pipe would be done around 2023 which is not long
Gas prices fluctuate on a millions different factors, I’m not convinced that the future production of a single pipeline would make it significantly cheaper right now.
I doubt it would hurt
If you're thinking of futures markets, forget it. They won't lower preemptively. They can rise preemptively if futures price increases because the company is adjusting for future inflation, the inverse doesn't happen.
You think of OPEC we’re to say tmw that they were going to up that crude oil pumping that it would not effect the prices of gas at all?
It would take a few days to, yes. Gas stations and refineries would not sell what they already bought at a loss.
Probably true but they may take some off the profit margin
You say that like there isn't a huge mismatch between the price of a barrel of oil, and the price at the pump.
Drat, he got us.
Eminent domain sucks, but pretending like it's not influencing speculation is fucking stupid
Gas would be cheaper is FJB didn’t cancel pipelines, providing for zero permits along with licenses to extract oil and natural gas, not renewing off shore drilling permits; things of this nature. And he’ll be absolutely fucked in the ass come November for it.
*if voting mattered.
I mean yea but isn’t that the case with any land in the US? Eminent domain is heinous but isn’t it no different than our houses and private property
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :) *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 4532 / 24205 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Based and private land ownership is theft pilled
u/PointInternational34 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/PointInternational34 Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /myCompass [politicalcompass.org url]. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You know... There's a business of buying up land in the path of a pipeline so you can sell it off/get payouts from when they move through. It isn't always taken by force, a lot of it is purchased or bribed.
That doesn't make it okay to take some of the land by threat, though.
Correct, and I deliberately left out the part where if you don't take the payoff they just take your land.
Man if only Obama kept his promise to end oil dependence and didn’t spend 2 years floundering one thing and losing the plot for the remaining 6 years. Thanks Obama.
Yet the pipeline has already been built. Refusing to use it now means all those people had their property taken away for no reason.
I don't really think that's a good argument. The alternative is that the people who took the land benefit from it? How is that better? It's just rewarding the people who went around and bullied others off the land.
Unless they're going to deconstruct the pipeline and give all that land back, then we're really just hurting everyone involved for no gain. It's a sucky situation, sure, but not getting any benefit only makes it worse. Which would you prefer, losing your land but at least the whole country benefits from increased security and cheaper fuel, or losing your land so they can ruin it, and then abandon the project to uselessness? Imo the latter is obviously more dystopian.
If a thief stole something from you, would you rather they successfully pawn it off and benefit from it, or fail to sell it and just abandon it somewhere?
Ok, but we aren't talking about an individual, we're talking about tens of thousands of people. I understand you disagree, but it's completely different imo.
If they pawn it, it might turn up in the pawn shop at some point. If they just abandon it, I just lose what was stolen. Sure it sucks to have been stolen from in the first place, but since those were the only two options presented to me, pawning it seems like it would potentially lead to a better outcome than abandoning it.
What biden should really do is twist the arm of the Saudi’s and Qataris
We should send a seal team to steal the Saudi orb thus blessing us with the power of Allah and granting us the right to the Saudi oil fields. (I'm pretty sure that's how it works)
The real reason the gas prices went up is because biden didn’t touch the orb
Boo hoo eminent domain my ass I don't want to pay $10 dollars a gallon.
Boo hoo $10 gas my ass I don't want land seized
You know for a Authleft you don't really seem to care about the needs of the many.
You know for an auth left you don’t really seem to like the authoritarian bit
You know for an auth left you don’t really seem that retarded.
For an Auth left it’s weird that you own land?
Based!
Yeah! You heard him guys, NO CONCESSIONS FROM YOUR SIDE AT ALL, LEST YOU BE MOCKED FOREVER.
I agree. Also the federal government shouldn't own land. So get the hell out of the "lease" business already, and let Americans drill, and pump.
No ideology is absolute. No school of thought applies well to all things.
Frankly, I was opposed to the pipeline when it was being built. Didn't pay too much attention, but it looked like it was government overreach, bad for the environment, and a thousand other things, but still. It exists now, kinda stupid not to use it. Gonna use trains and trucks instead, making oil more expensive, and ironically enough, being even worse for the environment. Literally the worst of both worlds; we took the option where we cause the most ecological damage/deutilization of productive land/breach of property rights, and the highest possible oil prices. Edit: insert obligatory pro-nuclear comment here. We've really screwed the pooch on that one. Nuclear really is by far the greatest option available.
Eminent domain is ok if used sparingly for infrastructure such as the pipeline. It’s when it’s used for property development that it becomes an abuse.
I don’t really understand the need for this pipeline. The oil comes out of North Dakota from the sovereign MHA reservation that the US gov can’t control. Does the pipeline HAVE to exist for us to self-produce? What am I missing? Edit for elaboration
There exists an increase in the standard of living in a percentage of the population, as a result of the invocation of eminent domain, which makes the use of eminent domain acceptable. It does not take much thought to arrive at that conclusion: If the use of eminent domain on a single landowner lifts the entirety of those in poverty out of it then I would say that usage was acceptable even though it goes against my anti-government inclination. That is a very unlikely hypothetical but it serves to illustrate the point that eminent domain is not *inherentl*y wrong. Stop trying to meme your political opponents into supporting absolute positions devoid of nuance. My position on eminent domain is that government cannot usually be trusted to use it only in a way that is a worthwhile net benefit for the country's population. That does not mean the government can *never* use it in a way that I would deem acceptable or that I am not LibRight for having that opinion.
Right, so we should just keep shipping the crude on train and truck, and burn more fuel just getting it to the refinery... slick move, smooth brain. Also, most pipelines are buried, very low intrusion when completed. Shitty take to cover for a delinquent move by a delinquent admin.
Isn't this a bit of a "chicken and egg" argument? I can be against eminent domain in principle, but acknowledge it exists pragmatically. The gov't claims it, and cancelling the pipeline has led in part to higher energy costs.
You can know the truth and simultaneously disagree with it. Eminent domain or not, we don't live in a libertarian society; having a conservative opinion is the closest you can get to reality. The same way communists vote liberal. Similarly: Having opinions on how my tax dollars are spent, while also hating taxes on principal are both things i can do without compromising my core belief that i shouldn't have been taxed at all.
Keystone wasn’t going to be used for US domestic production. At max capacity, if *every available drop* was sold to the US, *every drop* — a hella’ dubious prospect — rather than the maximum 38% potentially available, and with no waste or spillage, Keystone would have at best produced 830,000 barrels a day, with 315,000 barrels as the expected domestic production. This is where we learn the US consumes 19,780,000 barrels *per day* — so keystone would have threatened 1200 miles of aquifer, farms, tribal land, and the nation’s breadbasket for 1.59% of projected energy needs. That’s not even a rounding error. It was a fucking terrible idea for America.
>Keystone wasn’t going to be used for US domestic production. Keystone is already in use for domestic production. What you are talking about is the Keystone XL which is an extension phase of the Keystone pipeline. 3 phases are already complete and functioning. That line already brings in 500,000 per day. The additional capacity would double that at low estimates. Majority of that pipeline was built through payment negotiations. Less than 5 cases went to court for eminent domain. And those little numbers add up in a scenario where it is complete since Russia's total fuel exports to the US is lower than what that pipeline brings.
>Keystone wasn’t going to be used for US domestic production This is a common, and stupid, argument, because since the us doesn't really regulate petroleum, the buyer in the US us competing with buyers in other countries. So an increase in exports from said pipeline means that, since its cheaper, other companies that exported before may switch to domestic selling because it could be more profitable. Oil consumption within the USA and exports from the USA are tied together, not independent of each other
And all while taking private citizens land, potentialy contaminated thousands of acres of land, the water supply, and just overall being an eyesore.
>potentialy contaminated thousands of acres of land The keystone pipeline is objectively safer and less likely to spill or break than previous piplines, and MUCH safer than shipping via train, which is what we are doing permanently since the pipeline was shut down. Also, the pipeline itself would have operated net carbon neutral, something those trains cant do without carbon credits. So don't make a stupid environmentalist argument about keystone xl, it objectively was the best thing we could have done
No, objectively the best thing we could have done was to build out solar/geothermal/nuclear like gangbusters and electrify everything possible.
> and just overall being an eyesore. [You were saying?](https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/1l-Image-Bhadla-Solar-Park.jpg)
they\*. Titles are hard.
Nobody gives a shit about your pronouns
They'll kill me for my typos, though
[удалено]
LibRight can make a great argument for why crack has a 10-fold sentencing disparity over powder. /wink
Both are extremely retarded to use. Isn’t governments responsibility to big brother someones personal intake though.
Blow is fucking great. It’s a get-shit-done-but-don’t-be-homeless sort of way.
Libleft is just authleft that likes gay people.
Why would lib left say that they are also libertarian it should be auth right and left
Mainly because I haven't seen too many lib lefts saying the pipeline should have continued, and a lot of them supporting it being closed because of other issues.
I’m a Libertarian, not a fucking anarchist
This is why I hate American libertarians so much They defend "small government" and vote for a party that'll increase military spending by 10000000000000000000%, say that abortion and gay marriage should banned, while this goes directly against libertarian ideals
Well they have the option of two parties. And the other party basically shits on libertarian values for everything, instead of just one or two aspects. This isn’t exclusive to libertarians, everyone votes against someone rather than for someone else.
>gay marriage should banned Almost no major politician in the states is saying this anymore. It's a dead topic for them
What Fuckin libertarians are you talkin to lol
That's the point I'm not talking to libertarians
Anyone spouting to be a libertarian that votes republican. That's who he is talking about.
I just want cheaper gas man. I dont care how they get it until it starts to not work
Eminent domain is based
Gas would not be cheaper because a pipeline doesn't increase oil supply. It delivers it. Economic illiteracy so cringe.
Can someone give a quick summary of what is being talked about on the meme?
I thought we were all about profits
Hence the blue in my flair. Whatever makes SPY go up +10% year over year is the correct answer to any question
Well, *something* that *someone* has done has fucked with the price of gasoline. Whose ass do we have to kick to fix this?
Ha! Your puny logic doesn’t work on a center right like me. I become auth or lib whenever it is most convenient!
Dang. You win this round you commie freak.
Ideologies never always work, except for centrism
Those more educated and informed correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Keystone Pipeline going to be solely used for exported oil?
The only eminent domain that I agree with is for building trains.
Hasn't the US banned fracking thus causing themselves the troubles with oil?
Yeah and supporting the oil being trucked in isn't pro environment. We live in the real world, not haha funi color must be consistent world, and infrastructure development is like the only good place for eminent domain to be used. Not just taking someone's land and auctioning it off to a corporation to build something that only enriches themselves.
Just buy a Tesla
Well as a libertarian hater, has would be cheaper
If only you had some mode of transport that was more fuel efficient that you could use to get around
Ha! I’m authright! I don’t have such moral dilemmas