Recent Supreme Court Ruling

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to confiscate property to build a new highway/city hall/actual government use.

It's quite another to give it to Wal-mart, Jerry Jones, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

What nonesense is this???? How can you posit that one instance is moraly superior to the other (with a str8 face that is - maybe my sarcasm detector needs new batteries). There is NO ethical way to FORCE someone off their property against their will.

Just so it is put out there (hopefully not for the first time):

Any and all interactions between individuals that aren't based on agreement (i.e. - are based on force) - are ethically repugnant. The fact that the gov't, with it's monopoly on the use of force, is the one actually facilitating this transaction - makes it even more sickening.

[lehighguy]

We didn't like how southern states treated blacks, because it violated thier basic rights. So we forced them to change through civil rights acts. This legislation violates basic property rights, which should be protected just as civil rights were protected.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't like how southern states treated blacks, because it violated thier basic rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course that sounds good. And of course, it made alot of economic sense for the Northern States (or rather non slave states) ruling elites.

[lehighguy]

If you think civil rights legislation was a bad thing, if you believe there aren't basic human rights that must be respected, then I don't think we have a framework by which to debate. We are starting from entirely different core beliefs.

[superleeds]

I think our core beliefs maybe somewhat similar. I misread your initial post. I apolagize.

[TomCollins]

If you think these two situations are exactly the same, then I'd imagine that a petty criminal and mass murderer are the same in your book as well.

I'm not thrilled about eminent domain in cases for "legitimate" uses, so long as it is strictly controlled, and property owners are fairly compensated. There is a huge difference in playing SimCity, building and destroying for any purpose at all.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely hate the result of this ruling and the impending abuse that will follow. However, I have less trouble with the logic.

It sounds to be like they are saying, "we are not in the business of deteriming what is truly a public interest. We will leave that to the states to determine".

If you dont like how your state is run then vote them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the state has a majority that wants to take away the property or even imprision a minority, its fine. Since if it was wrong, we should just vote them out.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think these two situations are exactly the same, then I'd imagine that a petty criminal and mass murderer are the same in your book as well.

I'm not thrilled about eminent domain in cases for "legitimate" uses, so long as it is strictly controlled, and property owners are fairly compensated. There is a huge difference in playing SimCity, building and destroying for any purpose at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what kind of petty criminal you are reffering to, but I will say this - "right of way" (eminent domain) has been in effect for a while now and this development is simply the natural progression of a bad law. To discuss which portion of this bad law is "worse" (forcing you out of your property so that the government can build a new building there or so that walmart can do the same) - is neither productive nor necessary, the fact remains that the law, at its core, is trampling on property rights in one of the worlds only states where the term (property rights) still means something. You also refer to some sort of "fair" compensation. What you might think is fair isn't what the owner thinks is fair - thus, when dealing with others it is only appropriate to do so via mutual aggreement, any other way (your "fair" compensation refference) leads to one thing and one thing only - the eradication of personal rights and liberties.

[sam h]

Taking property through eminent domain has been practiced for decades. Without this ability, most large urban infrastructure projects like the construction of highways and subway systems would have been impossible. To view the right of private property as absolutely sacrosanct is just another foolish mantra that has little relation to any historical practice in modern societies.

So essentially the ruling here concerns whether eminent domain can be applied when it is a private development. I think this is probably a bad idea, as it opens up the door to obvious abuses of interest. The court's rationale that it was ok as long as the seizure wasn't strictly for the benefit of the private developer indicates an amazing naivete concerning what private developers do, which is often to sell government a line of bullshit about public interest in order to enrich themselves.

Here is the ironic thing, however, which is the really the main point. The fact that this issue has come up can be directly related to the general shrinking of the state's role in public development and investment, a downsizing that is right in line with market-oriented perspectives on political economy. But the state never really goes away, since that is how complex societies with complex economies work. Therefore, the state is still involved, only now, with a lesser role, it is involved in such a way as to lead to more possible abuse, generally by powerful private interests over weaker ones. Yet another example of less state involvement leading to more abuses and, really, a worse functioning market economy.

[TomCollins]

Example 1)

Someone shoplifts a candy bar.
Someone else murders 25 people.

Both are wrong. One is obviously worse.

Example 2)
City uses eminent domain to buy houses to build a highway.
City uses eminent domain to buy land to sell to Wal-Mart.

Are both wrong? Debatable. But one is clearly more wrong than another.

I'm trying to be pragmatic. If there was no eminent domain, no roads would ever get expanded. Highways would not exist. Yeah, it sucks to be forced to sell your property, but chances are a lot less likely that you have corruption and a battle of who can win government favors in this case than in others.

You are forcing a choice between anarchy and authoritarianism. There is a reasonable choice besides this, a LIMITED government.