Earlier quoted context omitted.
No business can survive under those conditions and that is not a valid critique of their viability under a range of ordinary conditions. Tax payer do own businesses due process under law and a respect for private property rights. In America, the government can’t seize a business without compensation. Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution and a viol…
> Mandatory shut downs, in the absence of financial assistance, is arguably a “taking” under the constitution False, government does this to businesses all the time and compensation isn’t due. Take hurricanes in Florida and mandatory shutdown/evacuation orders, there is no promised compensation. Besides under imminent domain cases, I’d like to see some case law to support taxpayers bailing out businesses.
The existence of imminent domain proves my point, there are circumstances where tax payers owe An obligation to property owners and their actions are restricted by that obligation. Now we can argue about whether this specific act is a taking but I destroyed your blanket argument that tax payers don’t own business anything.
Own a business with a plot of land, tax payers want to expand a road and tear down your office and take the land? Can’t do it without paying.