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
share