Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

Why You Should Oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline

031313_lft

There is one reason why you should oppose the proposed $5.3 billion Keystone XL Pipeline. And it has nothing to do with “green religionists,” as The Wall Street Journal calls the opposition in today’s paper.

Instead, it has everything to do with a foreign oil company using U.S. government power to force Americans off their land in the name of “eminent domain.” It has everything to do with putting a 78-year-old grandmother in jail, pepper-spraying protesters and using other bullying tactics that would make the Mafia proud.

This pipeline would connect the oil and gas producers in Western Canada with various U.S. endpoints. There are all kinds of economic benefits for a new pipeline. You’ve probably heard about the 16,000 jobs, for instance. I’m not disputing the supposed benefits.

What I don’t like is the eminent domain abuse. In fact, I don’t like eminent domain at all. The fact that a government can force you off your own property shows that property rights are not secure, even in the U.S. As the great economist Murray Rothbard put it:

“Certainly no one can say that the inviolability of private property is protected by the government. And when government confers this power on a particular business, it is conferring upon it the special privilege of taking property by force.”

The latter is what’s happening here. There have been many eminent domain actions against property owners in Texas, for example. One of the most famous is the case of the 78-year-old grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild. Police arrested her and threw her in jail for a night. Why? She was trespassing — on her own farm! A Texas court condemned the property at TransCanada’s request after she refused to sign over her property. They seized it anyway.

There are many more such stories. All you have to do is Google “TransCanada Pipeline” and “eminent domain.” You will find a long trail of news stories covering the struggles of property owners against the thuggish oil company and its bullying government henchmen. You’ll find the pepper-spraying protesters, threatening letters and other nastiness. And you’ll find TransCanada stealing a lot of property.

Here is an excerpt from an article from the Austin-based Statesman:

“The pipeline’s southern segment doesn’t require an international permit. It crosses about 800 tracts of land in Texas. According to The Associated Press, TransCanada has claimed eminent domain to condemn more than 100 of those tracts — an unusually high condemnation percentage (about 12.5%) for a pipeline project in Texas.”

Proponents of the pipeline overlook all this.

Even The Wall Street Journal, in today’s editorial “No More Keystone Excuses,” doesn’t even mention the word “eminent domain” at all. Instead, it paints the opposition as a bunch of loony lefties who “want the world economy to run on windmills and solar panels.”

Shame on The Wall Street Journal.

Shame on them for saying nothing about the ranchers and farmers who don’t want to give up their land. I can’t imagine a more American cause than the simple defense of someone’s property.

And don’t bother writing me emails telling me all the good the pipeline will do. I don’t care. I don’t care if 99 people benefit and one guy gets the shaft. I’m for that one guy. What is liberty if not for the minority against the majority? It is nothing. If a minority of one cannot make his legitimate rights stand up against the onslaught of majority opinion, then those rights are a legal fiction and there are no rights for anyone.

I also don’t care how unintrusive the pipeline may seem to you. If a property owner doesn’t want to grant the right-of-way, then that is the end of the discussion. It doesn’t matter if the pipeline is largely hidden or takes up only a tiny percentage of a ranch or farm.

In my view, the government should have nothing to do with the pipeline.

If TransCanada wants to build a pipeline, then it should be able to build that pipeline — provided it finds other consenting parties to grant it the required easements. If not, then too bad. That is the price of liberty. The oil will have to find some other way to market, or perhaps never will.

And here, at least, the Journal and I can agree. As the editorial says:

“If the Alberta oil doesn’t flow south to America via the Keystone XL, it will flow west to China via other pipelines or rail. It will also flow to the Gulf Coast by other means, including pipelines and rail to East Coast ports, and then via tankers in the Atlantic and around Florida.”

That is true. The oil will get out. There is too much money at stake.

Sincerely,

Chris Mayer

Author Image for Chris Mayer

Chris Mayer

Chris Mayer is on the board of advisers of the Laissez Faire Club. He is also managing editor of the Capital and Crisis and Mayer’s Special Situations newsletters. Graduating magna cum laude with a degree in finance and an MBA from the University of Maryland, he began his business career as a corporate banker. Mayer left the banking industry after ten years and signed on with Agora Financial. His book, Invest Like a Dealmaker, Secrets of a Former Banking Insider, documents his ability to analyze macro issues and micro investment opportunities to produce an exceptional long-term track record of winning ideas. In April 2012 Chris will release his newest book World Right Side Up: Investing Across Six Continents

  • http://www.facebook.com/mscotthowell Scott Howell

    You absolutely nailed down the issue that I have with the Keystone XL pipeline.
    It’s not that TransCanada is taking the land per se, but using common carrier laws in the States
    to acquire the use of the land. This is worse than crony capitalism; it’s codified
    into law. These type laws were enacted primarily during the railroad
    building boom in the mid 19th century. Talking about being ‘railroaded’!
    Pretty much the Gilded Age and the railroad boom/bust age was done on
    the backs of individuals, individual property owners and the common man.
    Theft by entrenched interests is nothing new! Somehow the well
    connected got pipelines and power lines added to the list. We must work
    to repeal these laws so these special carveout laws and force these
    companies to negotiate land purchases within the constraints of the
    free-market.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mscotthowell Scott Howell

    You absolutely nailed down the issue that I have with the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s not that TransCanada is the federal government taking the land per se, but using common carrier laws in the States to acquire the use of the land. This is worse than crony capitalism; it’s codified into law. These type laws were enacted primarily during the railroad building boom in the mid 19th century. Talking about being ‘railroaded’! Pretty much the Gilded Age and the railroad boom/bust age was done on the backs of individuals, individual property owners and the common man. Theft by entrenched interests is nothing new! Somehow the well connected got pipelines and power lines added to the list. We must work to repeal these laws so these special carveout laws and force these companies to negotiate land purchases within the constraints of the free-market.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-R-Carreiro-Sr/100000561837094 Joseph R Carreiro Sr

    Is it better in the long run for the United States to have the pipeline and the oil or is it better for China to end up with both?That is the question.The long term affect on the Country should be the determining factor so all Americans can be protected.330 million.Think hard on it.

  • Phubaiguy

    My grandfather, a US Marine, was waiting on a beach with bags and gun at the most southern part of Florida as Teddy Roosevelt was attacking San Juan Hill. The ship never came for his bunch. Later he bought a house nobody wanted in 1931. Nobody continued to want it until the latter 70′s or so when it found itself within a historical district. 31 years ago is when it all started. That’s when the fat lady got out of her Lincoln Continental to measure our grass with a yardstick so she could complain. With eminent domain at least I would get something but right where the trail of tears,ended, here they go again, they want it…so they conjure up a reason to take it just like Andrew Jackson did only I won’t get any land or Oklahoma rabbits to eat in return. If I didn’t have any other money I would end up walking the streets..and it would all be OK. It’s legal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/iiss.ssii.1 Iiss Ssii

    So by this reasoning, no pipeline should ever get built, period.

    Or any railway.

    Or any power lines.

    Or any new roads.

    Because, it is almost statistically certain that *someone* along the right of way of any such project will inevitably refuse to accept any amount of financial compensation in exchange for access to their property. And if the government cannot force that minority of landholders to trade financial compensation for access to their land, then no project that impacts hundreds or thousands of landowners will be possible.

    So in this imaginary, idealized world of yours, there will be no eminent domain and consequently there will also be no public works that impact many landowners.

    I’m glad I don’t live in that world.

  • Mark Brady

    “You’ve probably heard about the 16,000 jobs, for instance. I’m not disputing the supposed benefits.” Jobs are not benefits. Jobs on the pipeline take labor away from other activities that are displaced. The fewer the jobs the pipeline takes, the more labor that is available for other purposes.

  • greata

    The Canadian govt supports this pipeline, not because they care for our energy independence, but because they understand that the US federal govt is better at bullying its citizens into submission than they are in Canada. They’ve calculated they’ll have a harder time building a pipeline to the coast in Canada than through the middle of the US.
    Every other reason you hear is for public consumption, to win the PR campaign against any opposition. The oil is not for us – it goes to the highest bidder in the global oil market.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-M-Ray/100000732727148 James M. Ray

    Keystone = Kelo + oil.

  • Pingback: Precious Metals Info from surgreen » Why You Should Oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline

  • bob roe

    I’d be curious to know how many owners of those “800 tracts of land” (surprised it’s not more) conclude that whatever compensation is paid for the Keystone XL easement is “just compensation,” when the dust settles. I like my house and where it is, but if someone shows up in the next 10 minute offering me 150% of its market value, I’ll say “how long do I have to clean out my stuff?”
    The permanent ROW for the pipeline – per TransCanada – is about 15m (50ft), so if it crosses a large land tract (e.g. a ranch), I don’t suppose in most cases that it’s a nuisance. I’d think that TransCanada and the pipeline’s constituents (all the oil companies, many of which are US firms) have enough spare change to buy out properties beyond the ROW, where the owners believe their property values are adversely affected. Have you any more details on that?

  • rocalkins@msn.com

    The problem isn’t with the pipeline, it’s with the abuse of eminent domain. That, in turn, is related to the overall contempt the government has begun to show for the constitutional rights of the nation’s citizens. Unless we wake up and start defending our constitutional rights from government abuse, we are going to lose our freedom. Screwing up the economy by stopping the pipeline, to avoid an abuse of our rights, isn’t going to fix the problem. The American public is going to have to wake up and get off its collective a$$ and start screaming loudly and clearly to clean up our overweening bureacracy and corrupt politicians.

    Dick Calkins
    rocalkins@msn.com

  • saengch

    With some regret, I just terminated my WSJ subscription this month, having read it since 1987. Its journalists are just not aware enough of economic liberty,
    classic liberal issues, not to mention Austrian economics. The
    editorial is especially unquestioning regarding copyright and patent
    issues, treating current laws as sacred, not being creative to come up
    with some fresh stand on a shorter copyright period, even as it
    struggles with online readership. It’s taking up too much of my time to sift through WSJ articles for “enlightening” ideas and editorials.