The downer topic


The result of the family's win, filling that quarry to expand the airport, costs the government(yes, it's still the government paying for it in the end) millions and millions of AUDs, which could have been used on hospitals, war veterans aid, green electricity, oversees charity, etc etc. Hate to rain on anyone's parade but that's just fact. In before "it's just a film"(if it's just a film I should obviously not care about the family either).

Nice deadpan humour otherwise!

If dolphins are so smart, how come they live in igloos

reply

God, yeah, you're right ! We'd never thought of that - hats off to you, sir.

We're all going to Bonnie Doon!

reply

It was a work of fiction, dopey.

reply

Would you feel the same if your home was being compulsorily acquired for about a tenth of what it would cost to buy a new home

There has to be limits to what the government can do in the name of saving taxpayers money and in this case the high court decided they had overstepped those limits






'In order for one to be affected by insults, one must have some respect for their source'

reply

Good point, following the logic of the original post, we should all just abdicate all our rights "for the common good" to save "taxpayer" money. Taxes are compulsorily aquired, if anyone but the government financed their enterprises this way, it would be called stealing or racketeering, and there are those who want to give them even more power than they already have to take a citizens money and do whatever they want it with it, with little or no outside oversight??

There is a place which does exactly what the OP wants, it's called China, the government takes really good care of you there as long as you don't complain.

This film would have been 10 minutes long and called "Involuntary Organ Donors" if set in China.


"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

If I may lend an American perspective since they do this here in the states quite a bit under eminent domain laws. If the government feels they can trample individual rights of the people, they will trample the rights of all the people. In this case, yes they will have to spend more money to fill in the quarry, but what if all the families had to go on government assistance? Also as noted in the end he wound up with 8 trucks (maybe 11 if mum is right), he is adding money back into the community and the government at large.

This movie demonstrated how the government can be so penny wise and pound foolish.

reply

Planning ahead would have helped. Turn the old quarry into a sanitary landfill. In 10-20 years, you can have the land. Easy.

In general, I find a lot of these sorts of expansions are filled with a lack of foresight (above) and vision. Is there an old, derelict shopping center down the street? Can we just put the freight terminal there where no one will object as much to a payday? Can you move the rental car facility, use that, and pay for a tram to the new one? Etc.

reply

You are ignoring the fact that Airlink is backed by the Barlow Group, a private company that is promoting the project in concert with the government. In all likelihood, that means Airlink is receiving government subsidies, tax breaks and variances in exchange for local investment and jobs. The Barlow Group also gets a partner with the power to seize land compulsorily, something it can't do on its own and will save it a lot of money.

It is not nearly as simple as saying the Kerrigan decision will cost the government money that could be spent on other programs. It costs the *Barlow Group* more money to build elsewhere, not the government. Everything else about the deal, jobs created, whether the government should have an interest in a private enterprise, etc. stays the same.

The whole film is merely a situation where a group of billionaires with powerful government allies attempt to take the cheapest, easiest path to their commercial goal, but are halted in their tracks by a working class guy who refuses to give in to the massively powerful interests that are aligned against him.

Your argument could be used to justify any violation of citizen rights if it will benefit society as a whole. For example, we (society) might decide we'd use fewer natural resources by euthanizing you and several thousand other people. Too bad for you, but a win for the rest of us. How's that sound? The only thing stopping that are constitutional protections that grant the individual inherent rights that the government may not abrogate, period.

And that is what The Castle is really about, do property rights really mean anything or can the government take everything you have, just so the rest of us can get our packages delivered for a few cents less.


"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?"

reply

Who cares! Funniest movie ever.

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

reply