Different perspective on Kelo

Today, I started reading "A Libertarian Defense of ‘Kelo’ and Limited Federal Power" by N. Stephan Kinsella with 'what are you smoking?'

But it does make sense in that the State (and local) rights are affirmed by this decision. The only problem is that the whole Constitution would be thrown into question of what rights do I really have if the limitation applies only to the federal government. Things that the Constitution prohibits the feds from doing can now be (un)done by the state or local government. What was assumed to be a restriction to all levels of government is now redefined to apply only to the federal government.

Also, Kelo decision expands the meaning of "public use" -- if it can be shown that more tax (income tax for feds) can be generated, then eminent domain can be exercised -- even by the feds. (This was not totally made up by yours truly -- my coworker helped in the discussions to come up with these words I now write.)

(I'm not a lawyer so I could be all wrong, of course.)