More fuel for the eminent domain fire

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with. I had a very negative kneejerk response to the Kelo case. But then I realized that it the idea of using eminent domain in the fashion is very compatible with my view of economics and how to help the less fortunate. In a nutshell, I believe the best way to help people is through a combination of private aid and pursuit of economic policies conducive to growth. If the best way for the government to help someone is by creating a climate favorable economic growth in a particular region is to rezone a certain area to attract businesses , its hard for me to argue against it. I need to think through it some more but its most definitely not as simple as some have made it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's simple economics. We know that both governments and courts are superior to markets. Duh.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But then the developers would have to pay retail. What's the point of buying politicians if you can't use them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right.

The original linked article noted that all homeowners would be compensated "at least assessed value" for their homes. Wow what a deal. Assessed value is nearly always less than market value. So the poor saps that get kicked out from their own homes can't even go buy themselves a comparable house with the proceeds they get from the sale.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats actually not what I said. My point was that on the face of it it would seem it is logical that eminent domain might be used in cases like this when we believe the increase in economic prosperity in the region is of a net benefit to those who lose their land. I was just trying to generate some discussion, which of course you didnt provide.

PS My line of thinking isnt Marxist, do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats actually not what I said. My point was that on the face of it it would seem it is logical that eminent domain might be used in cases like this when we believe the increase in economic prosperity in the region is of a net benefit to those who lose their land. I was just trying to generate some discussion, which of course you didnt provide.

PS My line of thinking isnt Marxist, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not realize it, but it is what you said. And you just said it again. Sad that you don't realize it because of your focus on the "net benefit" (being provided at the point of a gun).

Looking at your words in bold ... who is the "we"? Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. Who decides what is of benefit? Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. So, you believe that seizure of lawfully-owned property is okay if "we" (somebody else) decides its of "benefit" (by our own subjective standards). Welcome to liberalism, my friend, you just earned your honorary degree.

[vulturesrow]

Point taken. Still isnt Marxist and you still have yet to provide any real insight on how the philosophy that the best way government can help people who arent well off is to provide an economic environment favorable to growth conflicts with the use of eminent domain to provide said environment.

[ QUOTE ]
Point taken. Still isnt Marxist and you still have yet to provide any real insight on how the philosophy that the best way government can help people who arent well off is to provide an economic environment favorable to growth conflicts with the use of eminent domain to provide said environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not the government's role to seize private property and provide a better environment for those on the property. How about I seize your house and make it a better environment for you -- by my standards, of course, not yours? If a govt or developer wants to redevelop a property, its not that complicated -- buy it on the open market, don't seize it at the point of a gun. I don't see how seizure is preferrable to legal purchase. And if they don't want to sell, well then they obviously don't want your "help", so leave them be.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the government's role to seize private property and provide a better environment for those on the property. How about I seize your house and make it a better environment for you -- by my standards, of course, not yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

"You" were not elected by me to be the government. It goes to what your view is on the role of government. If you think the government should play some role in helping the less fortunate, and you think that providing good economic conditions is the way to do so, where is the contradiction. Is it not the government's job to look out for the good of the society it governs as a whole?

Please understand that I am quite undecided on this whole issue, so I am mostly playing devil's advocate here.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You may not realize it, but it is what you said. And you just said it again. Sad that you don't realize it because of your focus on the "net benefit" (being provided at the point of a gun).

[/ QUOTE ]

Focus on net benefit isn't necessarily Marxist; I think Locke or Mill would agree we should be focusing on net benefit as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at your words in bold ... who is the "we"? Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. Who decides what is of benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the crudest of terms, the majority. Surely it's much more complicated than that, but the 'we' is your elected representatives, who enact the will of the voters.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. So, you believe that seizure of lawfully-owned property is okay if "we" (somebody else) decides its of "benefit" (by our own subjective standards).

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like that, yeah. Again, 'we' in the sense that your elected leaders carry out the will of the citizenry.

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to liberalism, my friend, you just earned your honorary degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this has much to do with liberalism; I suspect most 'conservatives', when pressed, don't see property rights as so particularly sacrosanct that all eminent domain is illegitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
In the crudest of terms, the majority. Surely it's much more complicated than that, but the 'we' is your elected representatives, who enact the will of the voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The will of the majority allows the govt to point that fat gun at any individual and take their property for the "good of all." This is exactly the kind of scenario any liberty-loving American (the few of us left) should fight against.


[ QUOTE ]
I suspect most 'conservatives', when pressed, don't see property rights as so particularly sacrosanct that all eminent domain is illegitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most conservatives only pay lip service to freedom during war and political campaings, but don't really believe in it as a guiding principle.