Perspectives Who owns America?
Feb. 12, 2016
Page 9
The abomination of eminent domain
Colin Combs Perspectives Editor One of the great fundamental principles of law is the belief that “a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.” In other words, a government is only ever just if it rules by consent, and without that, it becomes tyrannical and evil. The hierarchy of power is also obvious. It is the people who are really meant to rule. In a free society, the people exercise self-determination. This is the reason we have taken to calling politicians our “representatives.” They only hold power insofar as it is given to them. They do not have it naturally, but rather are entrusted with it. With that in mind, let us consider the idea of eminent domain. By eminent domain, the government uses force to compel people to sell their property to the state at a price that the government itself decides to be the “fair market value,” so long as it is taken for “public use.” Moreover, this practice finds Constitutional support, supposedly, according to the Fifth Amendment: “… nor
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Those last three words, called the “Taking Clause,” are the legal basis for all kinds of takings. The legal theory behind this makes sense. It is the government who truly owns the United States of America, and it has reserved to itself the right to take away these lands from its citizens as it pleases. It should be plainly obvious, however, that these theories of law are entirely incompatible. Yet strangely enough, the U.S. government claims to uphold them both. If our government is truly one that depends upon “We the People,” then it should be obvious that the government cannot have greater rights and claims to real property than we do. From where would it derive such a power? It is a basic principle of law that one cannot hand over a title to land greater than one possesses in the first place. If ownership of the land is limited, these limitations “run with the land” if one sells it to a third party. The government does not claim that such a transfer of ownership happened in the first place. The United States
government still claims to only “represent” the people, after all, not to own them. Representatives cannot go against the wishes of the person they represent, though. If a man represents you, he is subject to your decisions, not the other way around. If a lawyer represents you in court, and you choose to plead innocent, he cannot decide that you plead guilty. What kind of perversion of representation is it, then, when the government can dictate to you that you are deciding to sell your land to them? In what way can this be considered a “just” power of the state? We might argue that the government does not just represent the landowner, but all of the United States. In that case, whether the landowner objects does not matter, when compared against the collective right. This line of argumentation is inherently flawed, however. Only a fraction of the U.S. population is even eligible to vote in the first place. Of that group, little more than half of the United States’ eligible voters actually vote in the presidential election, and a mere 36.4 percent show up
for congressional elections. Even less vote for the winning candidates. Further, many who vote for winning candidates only do so because they fear who will come into power should they not vote. This cannot be considered genuine consent to the winning candidates. The claim that any candidate represents “the people” is already quite dubious. Even if our government could truly be said to represent “the people,” would that change anything? Rights belong not to abstract groups, but to real individuals. The United States is not communistically owned by all, but by the people who worked, homesteaded, and bought the land. The collective right of the nation is merely the combined rights of the individuals that make it up. It has no power over the individual who refuses to sell their own land. The practice of eminent domain is an abomination against the principles of liberty that all just governments are founded upon. Either this practice should be entirely abolished, or the charade of being a government “for the people” should be ended.
Science strikes back Speaking up for science
Jenny Calawa
Contributing Writer As artfully as Ryan Brown attempted to convey his ideas about the supposed perils of scientism in the modern age (Feb. 5 edition), his article fell far short of his goal, succeeding only in illustrating his incredibly flawed misunderstandings of the true nature of science. The language throughout the article clearly demonstrates that Mr. Brown, as so many do, simply fears what he does not comprehend. I will not attempt to delve into Mr. Brown’s attempts to vilify science for being peer-reviewed and utilizing deductive reasoning; those fallacies speak for themselves. Let us therefore begin with the numerous references to “the fancy language of science,” “indecipherable gobbledygook” and the like scattered throughout the original piece. I would like to propose the radical notion that science does indeed have its own language through which it communicates - exactly as history, economics, political science, sociology, the arts, philosophy and every other academic subject does - that can be understood through study. For example: Before I took Civilization and the Arts here at Grove City, I did not know what the terms “cantus firmus” or “contrapposto” meant. But I gained that knowledge through dedicated and thorough study; primarily via a Google search. I learned about FriedelCrafts acylation of benzene from Professor of Chemistry Dr. Timothy Homan, and I certainly did not know what those words meant before I took Organic Chemistry II. Applying this concept, all scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws can be understood if one simply takes the time to do so. There is no inherent Gnosticism that dictates only scientists can possess scientific knowledge; it is for everyone to love and appreciate. Students here at GCC currently have to take two science courses with laboratory requirements; it would seem even our fair school believes everyone is capable of, and indeed should maintain, a basic level of scientific literacy. Again, if there are scientific concepts that mystify or confuse, I would suggest a basic Google search on the topic to start. There are numerous resources available.
So, it has been established that science can be understood through study just as any other subject; that certainly diminishes the “mystery of jargon” that is supposedly the “religious aspect of science” that “people are enraptured by.” This rise of “scientism”- a term which is not actually stated in the original article anywhere, but rather replaced with the word “science” only - that Mr. Brown so fears is rooted in the increased exposure of the public to scientific theories and laws, and subsequently in the increased level of scientific literacy and understanding. There is much taken out of context, misquoted and simply exaggerated by the scientifically illiterate, mind you, but as a whole, science has taken center stage as a means of communicating the “physical phenomena” encountered in our universe. Why is this? Mr. Brown believes it is because every other discipline has been rudely shoved out of the way for science, “the caveman way” as it was crudely put, to be crowned as king. Once more, this is due to a lack of understanding about the nature of science itself. Scientific study is by definition and necessity limited to the observation of the physical, empirical world and the logical inductions and deductions by which it can be further described. The resulting conclusions do indeed often use mathematics to model and depict the physical world, although most certainly not in an arbitrary or shoddy fashion as Mr. Brown has asserted. One simply needs bring to mind any one of Kepler’s three Laws of Planetary Motion, developed in 1619, and realize that they sent a man to the moon in 350 years later to grasp that science and math are entirely in harmony with one another. But I digress. The other disciplines have not disappeared, they are simply not in the limelight right now. But why? Why has mankind come to venerate science so? Because science solves the mysteries of the universe. Because it is full of wonder and majesty and complexity, capable of inspiring awe and capturing imaginations. No, it cannot state whether or not God exists; it instead gives mankind a way to understand how the cosmos came into being from the first nanosecond that time existed,
dark matter coexisting with the light and heat of the nuclear reactors firing inside of the stars. Science does not state what is in the heart of man, but it does explain how joy itself is triggered in our brains, the rush of interacting chemicals and electricity that make goosebumps rise on our skin at the sight of a shining night sky. Are there questions that science cannot answer? Yes. Does this mean that science deserves to be dragged through the mud, as the original article clearly does, by fearmongering Christ-followers that do not understand the beauty it does possess? No. This is what Mr. Brown truly fears: not the rise of science as the portrayer of ultimate truth, but rather the truths science can explain and defend that do not line up with other previously held beliefs derived from other disciplines. There is no need for this fear. After all, the end goal of science is to discover the truth. What is there to be afraid of? Nothing, except change. Therein lies the true beauty of science: the freedom to change, to mature in understanding, to be wrong so in the future one can be right. Two truths will not come into conflict, if the nature of reality - which science apparently cannot comment upon, according to Mr. Brown - follows the logic of cause and effect, as science has led us to understand that it does. If reality does not function this way, good luck convincing anyone of your truths, because mine will be just as valid as yours. Perhaps, just perhaps, the real fear is that one day, scientific fact will be the one to stand firm while previously held ideas from the arts, philosophy, history and even religion will have to be adjusted. The fact remains, however, that this day has already come. Ideas are constantly changing and growing and being adjusted, both inside and outside of science. But truth? It stands firm for the test of eternity. So do not be afraid of being wrong, and do not be afraid of being right. Scientists do not mind being either; in fact, we encourage them both. Come and try and fail and learn and try again and discover the truth. There is a place for everyone with curiosity and an open mind. That’s not so scary, right?
100 Campus Drive Grove City, Pa. 16127 collegian@gcc.edu gcc.collegian@gmail.com
Editor-in-Chief Patty Folkerts
Managing Editor Grayson Quay
Section Editors News Molly Wicker Life Caleb Harshberger Entertainment Jacob Sziráky Perspectives Colin Combs Sports Joe Setyon Photography Julia Williams
Design Chief Nate Pittman
Copy Chief Gabrielle Johnston
Copy Editors Erin Pechacek Angell Fonner Becky Tzouanakis
Section Designers Karen Postupac Margaret Heidenreich Bri Doane Laura Counihan
Staff Writers Stephen Dennis Thomas Kutz Kayla Murrish Breanna Renkin Annabelle Rutledge Bradley Warmhold Tim Hanna Meg VanTil Elizabeth Broderick Jon Matt Josh Fried
Staff Cartoonists Rachel Leung
Photographers Andrew Irving Rebekah Wheat Cameron Holloway Kirsten Malenke Ryan Braumann
Advertising/Business Manager Reagan Georges
Staff Adviser Nick Hildebrand The Collegian is the student newspaper of Grove City College, located in Grove City, Pa. Opinions appearing on these pages, unless expressly stated otherwise, represent the views of individual writers. They are not the collective views of The Collegian, its staff or Grove City College.
GREEN EYESHADE AWARD
This week’s award goes to writer Grant Wishard for his dedication and hard work on the Collegian. The Collegian Green Eyeshade Award honors student contributors who have demonstrated consistency and excellence in their work.