Recent Supreme Court Ruling - Page 7

Felix_Nietsche · #61 06-24-2005, 01:30 PM

......your $50,000 car, pay you a $100, and give it to a government crony. At least when the communist took over they were more honest in their thievery. They would seize a 'rich' person's home and give it to a party chief directly without the charade of 'buying' their home.

judgesmails · #62 06-24-2005, 01:34 PM

I think I understand your point and it is well argued and taken, but taken to its extreme there would be no federal matters. States (locals) cannot make laws that superceed federal/constitutional law.

I am all for limited federal government and judicial restraint and recognize that this is a case where the members of SCOTUS reversed roles where "conservatives" are playing judicial activists and "liberals" are showing restraint. But in this case the proper ruling should have been to protect the rights of the property owners from the brute force of the local government.

tylerdurden · #63 06-24-2005, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. Theft is theft.

A question for those who are shocked by this ruling:

What's the difference between the government taking your house (through emminent domain) and taking your money (through taxation)?

TomCollins · #64 06-24-2005, 05:19 PM

Purpose.

If the government takes my property to perform the essential services of a government for public use (e.g. roads, fire stations, police, etc...), it's a lot different than giving it to someone who bribes the government for it.

elwoodblues · #65 06-24-2005, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'd be surprised.

tylerdurden · #66 06-24-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Purpose.

If the government takes my property to perform the essential services of a government for public use (e.g. roads, fire stations, police, etc...), it's a lot different than giving it to someone who bribes the government for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So stealing from someone is OK if you "really" need it?

Triumph36 · #67 06-24-2005, 07:27 PM

What? All property is theft. It's not like God parceled out all property and gave Man the right to hold it; governments are the only means by which you hold property. While eminent domain is inherently unfair, it's also necessary in the case of public use.

TomCollins · #68 06-24-2005, 08:03 PM

No point debating this with an anarchist.

tylerdurden · #69 06-25-2005, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What? All property is theft. It's not like God parceled out all property and gave Man the right to hold it; governments are the only means by which you hold property. While eminent domain is inherently unfair, it's also necessary in the case of public use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Original ownership of land comes from working the land with tools that are rightfully yours. The addition of your labor to the land creates value that gives you an ownership right. Who is the original worker of the land stealing it from?

Government does not grant property rights - those rights are absolute and exist without the state.

"Necessary in the case of public use" means "necessary to sustain a government based on stealing from people."

What's the difference between stealing land from another country through conquest and stealing land through emminent domain? A: in the latter case the government is stealing from it's own citizens.

ACPlayer · #70 06-25-2005, 10:37 AM

I have not (yet) read the specifics of the case.

I was under the impression that the project was a waterfront development project that would include shops and other businesses as opposed to transferring it to another entity. The intent being to generate jobs and increase the revenue base. The project would be managed by a private company. The justices scrutinized the plan and apparently found that the plan was not a simple transfer.

If it is to simply hand the property over to (say) Pfizer for a new office building or whatever, then indeed this was a terrible decision (at all levels, from the local government and up).