Orwell Would Be Proud
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In his classic, “1984” George Orwell portrayed a world of government taking over every aspect of people’s lives, dominating their every moment and even infiltrating their minds to control thoughts, words and actions. A central core concept in arriving at the desired end involved the manner in which language was subverted to use phraseology to say one thing when exactly the opposite was the case (if reality were actually the measurement to be used).
A recent drive down a street I seldom drive brought me face to face with a billboard urging a “Yes” vote on Nevada’s Ballot Question 4 . The reason promoted for such a vote – cheaper roads.
I guess giving government entities who have the ability to use eminent domain extra leeway that they don’t currently have under Nevada’s Constitution could get the costs down for acquiring private property, but then there are several other options which would also reduce costs. Telling Nevada voters that government wants to roll-back some of the protections that they passed when they approved the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) probably wouldn’t elicit the type of positive feelings those supporting the new Question 4 would prefer.
When I went to the website promoting the favorable vote for this proposed Constitutional amendment they attempt to portray their effort as a protection program for private property rights, even going so far as to give themselves the committee name, “Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights”. Weakening the state’s constitutional protections of private property rights and reducing citizens’ ability to have more equal footing with eminent domain wielding government officials – and that is now “property rights protection”?
The suggestion that Nevada voters are at peril over unintended consequences from their passage of protection they instituted with passage of the current Constitutional requirements is about as faulty as the rest of the campaign being waged to roll back the troublesome provisions government officials find restrictive.
Arguments against passage of the 2010 version of Question 4 accurately detail that Nevada voters meant what they said in 2006 and 2008 passing the current Constitutional provisions that do protect property rights with over 60 percent favorable votes. Likewise the current proposal is intended to weaken the protections that are in place.
Champions of Big Brother government having their way with private citizen property – for the good of the order – want us to believe that a “Yes” vote on their proposal is a good idea and will get us cheaper roads. I’d suggest that they really don’t give a dime about what the costs of roads might be – instead simply wanting to expand the government’s flexibility for taking people’s property. A “No” vote on Question 4 would send a clear signal that private property rights do mean something to Nevada voters and we’re really better off with the protections that have already been adopted in our Constitution.
In his classic, “1984” George Orwell portrayed a world of government taking over every aspect of people’s lives, dominating their every moment and even infiltrating their minds to control thoughts, words and actions. A central core concept in arriving at the desired end involved the manner in which language was subverted to use phraseology to say one thing when exactly the opposite was the case (if reality were actually the measurement to be used).
A recent drive down a street I seldom drive brought me face to face with a billboard urging a “Yes” vote on Nevada’s Ballot Question 4 . The reason promoted for such a vote – cheaper roads.
I guess giving government entities who have the ability to use eminent domain extra leeway that they don’t currently have under Nevada’s Constitution could get the costs down for acquiring private property, but then there are several other options which would also reduce costs. Telling Nevada voters that government wants to roll-back some of the protections that they passed when they approved the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) probably wouldn’t elicit the type of positive feelings those supporting the new Question 4 would prefer.
When I went to the website promoting the favorable vote for this proposed Constitutional amendment they attempt to portray their effort as a protection program for private property rights, even going so far as to give themselves the committee name, “Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights”. Weakening the state’s constitutional protections of private property rights and reducing citizens’ ability to have more equal footing with eminent domain wielding government officials – and that is now “property rights protection”?
The suggestion that Nevada voters are at peril over unintended consequences from their passage of protection they instituted with passage of the current Constitutional requirements is about as faulty as the rest of the campaign being waged to roll back the troublesome provisions government officials find restrictive.
Arguments against passage of the 2010 version of Question 4 accurately detail that Nevada voters meant what they said in 2006 and 2008 passing the current Constitutional provisions that do protect property rights with over 60 percent favorable votes. Likewise the current proposal is intended to weaken the protections that are in place.
Champions of Big Brother government having their way with private citizen property – for the good of the order – want us to believe that a “Yes” vote on their proposal is a good idea and will get us cheaper roads. I’d suggest that they really don’t give a dime about what the costs of roads might be – instead simply wanting to expand the government’s flexibility for taking people’s property. A “No” vote on Question 4 would send a clear signal that private property rights do mean something to Nevada voters and we’re really better off with the protections that have already been adopted in our Constitution.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 10/5/2010 9:02 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Question 4 Nevada 2010 Election Private Property Rights
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Question 4 Nevada 2010 Election Private Property Rights
Comments