I'm sure it sucked to be the guy whose land was taken. And I'm unsurprised that it wasn't done with maximum tact and local sensitivity.
But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land.
In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built.
Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.
> But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land.
The point of the article is to question whether "our civilization" is worth treating people this way, or whether it would be better to craft a different civilization that treated people better.
But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land.
In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built.
Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.