Lynne Kiesling

Todd Zywicki’s post on the economics of Kelo is the most thorough analysis I’ve seen of the economics of eminent domain, holdout problems, and how that gets translated into a “public use”. Well worth a read.

And if I owned an autographed photograph of Franco Harris’s Immaculate Reception, you couldn’t pry it out of my hands for love or money. Let’s see you calculate fair market value for that.


Lynne Kiesling

Jacob Sullum’s Reason column about the New York Times’ support of the Kelo decision is incisive (and well titled!). My favorite part:

The nonchalance of the Times regarding eminent domain abuse is of a piece with its derogation of property rights, which it sees as inferior to so-called human rights. (Try to imagine the Times running a celebratory editorial on “The Limits of Human Rights.”) Yet property rights are human rights: Your ownership of your house stems from your ownership of your body and the fruits of your labor.

In this light, all rights are property rights, without which it would be impossible to exercise, say, freedom of religion or freedom of the press.

Yes. It cannot be repeated firmly enough or frequently enough. Property rights are human rights.


Lynne Kiesling

New, fresh voices rock, especially when they are saying good things in compelling and interesting ways. Such is the case with Liberty Belles, five classical liberal women with sharp wits and intellects.

One post to illustrate the eloquence, from Clara on gay marriage:

I favor allowing people to draw up these contracts, but I reserve the right to think they are hogwash. When the government starts doling them out and broadening word definitions until language loses its meaning the result is like that of most any government action: a vocal interest group gains at the expense of the majority.

Therein lies the beauty of anarchy: nothing prohibited, nothing endorsed.

The comments are also interesting reads. It’s a good measure of a site that whether or not you agree with the author on a particular issue, you can appreciate the argument and its eloquence.

Are there really that few classical liberal women out here? Me, Virginia, Jane Galt, Courtney, Fey/Joanna. Does being a woman matter that much, or not? I don’t really travel in ideological chest-thumping circles, so maybe I’m missing the point. But I guess that it is striking to me that of all the economists out here, let alone the classical liberal economists, I am the only woman.