I've seen some libertarian sneering about President Bush's Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People. Now there is much for the libertarian to criticize Bush for; but is it so terrible that the head of the executive branch directs the agencies under his control not to take property by eminent domain "merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken"? Sure, the Order has troubling exceptions. But an incremental step in the direction of liberty is not something to whine about, is it?
One such wag complained that Bush issued his decree "merely because he says so". And he also whined that a mere "Executive Order isn't much protection from arbitrary exercises of power. Hunh? What is wrong with the decree being because "Bush says so"? How could it be otherwise. And the complaint reeks of the libertarian centralist notion that only protection from the Supreme Federal Courts is good enough; that judges are somehow exalted and different from other federal employees. I guess Bush should have made the Order applicable to the States, contrary to the Constitution and federalism (which is a code word for racism for libertarian centralists).
Too many libertarians actually trust the federal courts and paper constitutions; they buy into all the rah-rah Saturday morning civics-cartoons. To these neo-Randians and utopian idealists and stubborn activists, "America" really "was founded" to "protect individual rights"; this gives them an over-elevated view of the importance of the paper constitution and its enforcement by the philosopher-king judges. And in turn makes them sneer at other means of limiting government power: vertical separation of powers (federalism), and so on. If the President decides not to take property for private use, this is not "good enough"; it must be the courts who say so, darnit.
There's just no pleasing some people.
