More fuel for the eminent domain fire - Page 11

SheetWise · #**101** 10-05-2005, 09:29 PM

My point was that there is a "real" thing called value. When you play poker you are constantly assigning values. And clearly, different people value the same thing (poker pot) in different ways.

lehighguy · #**102** 10-05-2005, 11:22 PM

How can something have "real" value. As you've pointed out people assesing different values to different things. An attempt to claim one is "right" is a misguided adventure in arrogance. And the further away from the source (those involved in the transaction) the more misguided the adventure becomes.

Examples:
Is gold more valueble then wheat?
Is a Beethoven CD worth more then a Brittany CD?
Is seeing a certain sunset worth $1,000?

Enlighten me as to the "real" value of those things.

SheetWise · #**103** 10-06-2005, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How can something have "real" value. As you've pointed out people assesing different values to different things. An attempt to claim one is "right" is a misguided adventure in arrogance.

[/ QUOTE ]
The one that's right is the one we agree on. If we don't agree, we haven't established a market value -- we can continue to value it as we please.

It's when a third party steps in as a proxy for the buyer or seller -- stating "This is what I would sell for ...", or "This is what I would pay ..." -- that is a misguided adventure in arrogance.

lehighguy · #**104** 10-06-2005, 12:40 AM

Bringing us back to the original point:

If a third party, the government, steps in and uses eminient domain to enforce its percieved value then this is an excercise in arroagance that hurts the society.

I think we understand eachother more then the original exchange led on. "Real" value at a moment in time is the price two parties agree upon (market price).

SheetWise · #**105** 10-06-2005, 01:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think we understand each other more then the original exchange led on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
Sorry, I sort of jumped in the middle there -- I read the thread, but may have confused the players. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Jdanz · #**106** 11-23-2005, 06:25 AM

sorry for taking so long to respond, i forgot about this thread until recently linked to it.

I'm not arguing for a specific situation, i don't believe the one quoted justifies government intervention, however i think that there are some things that do and some that don't. we'll never be perfectly accurate in identifying them, but i think we're far better off with some combination of market force and government intervention then all one or all the other. It would be up to the people forming a society (or somewhat sadly but more accurately the people capable of collectively imposing their will) to make these decisions.

I submit that a world in where those with the ability to enforce their will coercively are somehow completely stopped from doing so is impossible, but that's really neither here nor there.

tylerdurden · #**107** 11-23-2005, 08:59 AM

Now that this thread has be resurrected, I noticed this:

[ QUOTE ]
If a third party, the government, steps in and uses eminient domain to enforce its percieved value then this is an excercise in arroagance that hurts the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that eminent domain assigns a (arbitrary) value to property is not the most damaging aspect of it (tax assessment does effectively the same thing); the fact that it forces an unwilling party to *act* and transfer the property is the really bad part.

tylerdurden · #**108** 11-23-2005, 09:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
sorry for taking so long to respond, i forgot about this thread until recently linked to it.

I'm not arguing for a specific situation, i don't believe the one quoted justifies government intervention, however i think that there are some things that do and some that don't. we'll never be perfectly accurate in identifying them, but i think we're far better off with some combination of market force and government intervention then all one or all the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Some* people will *certainly* be better off. I'd be better off if I had all of your money.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be up to the people forming a society (or somewhat sadly but more accurately the people capable of collectively imposing their will) to make these decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're OK with a bunch of people ganging up and taking your liver?

[ QUOTE ]
I submit that a world in where those with the ability to enforce their will coercively are somehow completely stopped from doing so is impossible, but that's really neither here nor there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might makes right, eh?