Thanks for the comment. The case seems to raise one of those questions about Objectivist absolutism. Can government ever legitimately invoke eminent domain? For one of the legitimate functions of government in policing, the courts, and defense? Are property rights an absolute principle that does not apply, in the same way, to the defender of property rights: government? If government has the exclusive right to retaliatory use of force in its geographical area (but, actually, does it? What about urgent individual self-defense?), does it have the exclusive right to demand to purchase property essential to carrying out its functions? What I think that the Vermont story tells us is that taking property is taking life. Many adapt to it. They are wounded. But sometimes to take property is to take life itself. And that reflects not on the victim, but those who presume to act in "the public interest," which knows nothing about how life, work, creation, savings, planning, and hope are ONE. And yet, still, if there is an objective requirement to protect all that, as must government, are property rights cast in a different context? As Ayn Rand said, again and again, NOTHING can be understood out of context.

Thank you. very well written. A poignant reminder.