More fuel for the eminent domain fire

[ QUOTE ]
You're here, you've consented. You've used the roads, let the military protect you, let the police patrol your neighborhoods, let the fire department put out your fires, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this means we give tacit approval for the state to do anything that it chooses to?

You really are a confused individual. I hope every poster who views your political thoughts take them all with a grain of salt knowing that you think like this.

[ QUOTE ]
The big problem with this whole economic improvement thing is that it doesn't appear to work the majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hardly the big problem. Even if it did work, it would be wrong to seize lands and redistribute for economic reasons without paying the price that the owner is asking. The fact that such programs fail anyway is secondary.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So this means we give tacit approval for the state to do anything that it chooses to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no.

You may enjoy this book. While I'd love to take credit for the notion that we've formed a social contract (not through explicit consent) but through tacit consent, I'll fess up and admit that I didn't dream it up myself (although Locke certainly didn't either). But read this book; you might understand why I think pvn is off the mark, and what I'm getting at here.

Literally, by not rebelling against his government, pvn has tacitly consented to it. This doesn't mean he (or you, or I) has to agree with everything it does; in fact, we can abhor it; but we can't call it illegitimate (well, we can, but we'd be wrong).

I hope every poster who views your political thoughts take them all with a grain of salt knowing that you missed out on Government/Politics/Law/Philosophy 101/8th Grade Civics class at whatever educational institutions you've attended. Or at the very least, you were poorly taught in them, and not given an adequate reading list.

[ QUOTE ]
these sentiments would make way more sense if you didn't believe in building roads.

Clearly there are times when emminent domain is appropriate, so we have to conede that there is a "we" that "benifits" it's now imperative to figure out how far we're willing to go with the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. If there are so many that benefit from a road through somebody's property, then they should be able to meet the price of the owner to take the land. If they can't and resort to eminent domain seizure, then it shows that the "we" doesn't want to pay for their benefit, but want it given to them as cheaply as possible. And when the "we" decides what others must give them on the "we's" terms, it should scare Americans. But as long as you're the one doing the stealing, you don't care.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The big problem with this whole economic improvement thing is that it doesn't appear to work the majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hardly the big problem. Even if it did work, it would be wrong to seize lands and redistribute for economic reasons without paying the price that the owner is asking. The fact that such programs fail anyway is secondary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but this is the reasoning that they are building into the case. I think it is wrong at all times, but if they are going to rule in favor of seizure I want some gaurentees that if they don't do as they say they have to pay big time.

-Gryph

[Jdanz]

no that's not true, there are sometimes when liberty is enfringed on for the general good, such as when people are searched for bombs/weapons (which doesn't have to neccissarily be at some optional sports event). What all the anachro capitalist here miss, is that the free market is not perfect, and there are flaws, such as the inability for large groups to coordinate effectively, and the ability of say one person out of a thousand opposing a road.

He is then infringing on the rights of everyone else, and if you believe that a piece of paper saying he owns the land and can therefore deprieve the rest of the world of what can be considered legitamte uses in at least SOME circumstances is ridiculous.

If there was one guy with a hut in panama that didn't want to move for any amount of money, should we not have built the panama canal?

Is anyone haveing a one man veto over any group action any less an enfringement of liberty then majority rule? I certainly don't think so.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You're here, you've consented. You've used the roads, let the military protect you, let the police patrol your neighborhoods, let the fire department put out your fires, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. The old "love it or leave it" argument. It's bogus, and I've debunked it before.

First, it presumes that there is somewhere better to go to. Second, it presumes that this better place will allow me to enter. Third, it assumes that my property rights here are worthless.

Further, there is a difference between "consent" and "non-resistance". If a cop pulls you over, and decides to search your car without cause, and you don't try to stop him, have you consented? No, you haven't.

[ QUOTE ]
If you the state is illegitimate and oppresses you, you're under no obligation to stay. Enjoy Mogadishu.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if Somalia has less government, it doesn't follow that the overall situation is more desirable than here. Apples to oranges. If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, try comparing Somalia now to Somalia before anarchy. It's not "perfect" but it's vastly improved. It's certainly better than the neighboring countries, where government corruption runs rampant.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
no that's not true, there are sometimes when liberty is enfringed on for the general good, such as when people are searched for bombs/weapons (which doesn't have to neccissarily be at some optional sports event).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a violation of liberty. The owner of the sporting arena (or airplane, or bus, or whatver) has a right to set whatever conditions he wishes on the use of his facility. Now if you're searched by state forces while minding your own business, that's another matter completely.

[ QUOTE ]
What all the anachro capitalist here miss, is that the free market is not perfect, and there are flaws, such as the inability for large groups to coordinate effectively,

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

[ QUOTE ]
and the ability of say one person out of a thousand opposing a road.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to the ability for lots of people to steal from a smaller number.

[ QUOTE ]
He is then infringing on the rights of everyone else,

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Who has a right to demand that someone else provide something for his benefit? Sounds like a justification for slavery to me.

[ QUOTE ]
and if you believe that a piece of paper saying he owns the land and can therefore deprieve the rest of the world of what can be considered legitamte uses in at least SOME circumstances is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights don't come from a piece of paper.

Let's say you have a nice piece of property right in the middle of a neighborhood. Everyone else decides it would be "legitimate" to tear your house down, slap some pavement down, and make it a neighborhood park/basketball court, because it's in a good location. Certainly, more people would enjoy the property that way. Are you just a selfish scrooge if you resist?

[ QUOTE ]
If there was one guy with a hut in panama that didn't want to move for any amount of money, should we not have built the panama canal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It just means it would have to be built elsewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone haveing a one man veto over any group action any less an enfringement of liberty then majority rule? I certainly don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you're really begging the question here.

[tylerdurden]

[duplicate, deleted]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. The old "love it or leave it" argument. It's bogus, and I've debunked it before.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by debunk you mean: "I kind of flailed around and tried to address it", than yeah, you debunked it alright.

[ QUOTE ]
First, it presumes that there is somewhere better to go to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalia. You answered it yourself. It's a no-state paradise. A real paradigm for the world to follow. Don't back off now! The state is the cause of all problems; removal of the state solves all problems.

Like I said, enjoy Mogadishu. Drop me a note if you survive a week.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, it presumes that this better place will allow me to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who would ever keep you out of Somalia?

[ QUOTE ]
Third, it assumes that my property rights here are worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sell your property. Pack up, and enjoy the wonderful place we call Somalia. Why not? Please, please explain why you're not there right now - and I think you'll have your answer as to why anarcho-capitalism (and by that I mean anarchy) isn't particularly desirable.

[ QUOTE ]
Further, there is a difference between "consent" and "non-resistance". If a cop pulls you over, and decides to search your car without cause, and you don't try to stop him, have you consented? No, you haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have. He has no right to search your car. If he does so by force, there's an appeals process, accorded to you by the law.

Speaking of that, what do you do in Somalia when the local warlod and his boys pull you over for a shakedown?

Did this happen to you much when you were there? Would you ever dare go there? Gee, I wonder why not? Maybe you're enjoying state-provided police protections?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if Somalia has less government, it doesn't follow that the overall situation is more desirable than here. Apples to oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought, if we could just throw off the shackles of government, that would be it - peace, prosperity, and happinees for all! Maybe not? Maybe there are some other variables involved? What are those variables, anyway? What's keeping Somalia held back from being a utopia-on-Earth? Do tell. I thought the state was the cause of the world's woes.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not "perfect"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little bit of an understatement.