Corporate Harassment
The Big Corporation harassing the little guy Except the corporation is a bunch of sea islanders, and the little guy is Ted Turner.
Instapundit comments: “Turner has surrendered his claim to the land on St. Helena Island, owned by descendants of Gullah slaves, that he was attempting to claim,” and then adds some distinctly anti-Ted comments, “Good move, Ted. But then, when InstaPundit and Michael Moore unite in a good cause, the result is well-nigh irresistible.”” Yep, Ted is bad.
However, the last time I checked, nobody knew exactly who owned what, and part of this whole lawyer ruckus was to decide this business (innocent until proven guilty and all that). Of course the issue is settled now, Ted 0, Sea Islanders 1, and Turner is seen as a robber baron. But consider this: would the public have felt the same way about this issue if Ted Turner had not been a billionaire, and the Lands End Woodlands Company was the one with several million dollars worth of assets?
Well, obviously not. So where does the outrage come from? Both of these parties have motives for the land, with Turner perhaps having the more better incentives regarding land usage: he can afford to set aside the land for conservation, while the islanders have the incentive to use the land for commercial purposes. Looking from a land-usage point of view, Turner wins (at least, his incentives are better). So methinks, that the outrage comes from Turner having much more money than the islanders, but keep in mind that the islanders aren’t exactly starving either. If we accept this premise, it’s easy to backtrack up the logic ladder to justify things like welfare for anyone that doesn’t have the same wealth distribution as say, Ted.
Imagine if someone owned an acre of land. When does he cross the public’s perception of being a bad guy? When he owns ten acres? Twenty? Two hundred million?* Similarly, when does a corporation become a defender-of-the little guy? When it’s nonprofit? When it represents sea islanders? Keep in mind that the islanders probably formed this corporation in order to contractually keep each other from welching and selling out their individual pieces of land. In short, they’re a cartel. Just multiply the size of this group by several hundred, and you would have a cartel truly worthy of being broken up by the Justice Department.
*when the marginal increase of land ownage by Turner equals the marginal externality Turner imposes, but then, land ownage is discrete, whereas perceptions are likely continuous. Then where would we all be? (Not reading this probably).
