Free enterprise and eminent domain, Private property and the angry mob Options

[madchenallein]

Let me ask my fellow 'social security payers/nonbenefitees' what they think about this: Eminent Domain.

Recently the Supreme Court made a 5-4 ruling essentially expanding the guidelines for the use of eminent domain.

Fox News quote from Justice Stevens who wrote for the majority:
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,"

What trash! The federal government is a necessary evil, it's function is accepted by this citizen/voter/taxpayer on a very limited basis, not as a 'super parent' or as a babysitter, or as a cautionary and preventative to protect me against myself. I don't agree that even one, much less a primary function of the federal government's purpose is to foster economic development. You know who fosters that? We do. The people. Hungry? Find someone with food and exchange something YOU have that s/he needs or wants. No brainer. Someone else hungry too? You better team up or you better find something yon food posessor needs more than what yon hungry person #2 can provide.

So, basically they are saying that the government (your city, your county, your state, your nation) can swipe your property and bulldoze or dig up what's on it to put a new grocery store, a new road, a new stadium on it.

How do you like that? Is that fair? Is it an exercise of 'the good of the many versus the good of the few'? Or is this a slide into socialism?

HELLO! We still live in the USA! Why, in our capitalist, free-enterprise society, should a private citizen who has acquired property be required to give it up for 'fair market value'? (Ha, 'fair', should s/he have to give it up for 'fair' when they may have bought the property as an investment and could get 'optimum' value, or if it's the family farm that has been in the family for 95 years, should they have to give it up at all? Last time I checked, Kelly Blue Book doesn't have a category for sentiment.)

This is just another excuse for the greedy, money worshiping cretins in our society to create more shrines to the 'almighty dollar'.

We must stop our government from thieving our rights in exchange for 'safety' and 'the good of everyone', a more socialist statement I've not heard. We don't live in the Star Trek universe.

[sadolakced acid]

you forgot to mention that the government is required to pay a 'fair price' for the property.

what consitutes a 'fair price', however, differs.

nevermind.

eminent domain is a nessisary implement.

without it, roads would be hard to build, as would dams, bridges, docks, etc.

the good of eminent domain outweight the bad.

[madchenallein]

Wah, wah. So, nothing that is difficult is worthwhile? If it's just *one* person's property, just *one* family's property, then it's no big deal. Well, it's a big deal to that person or that family and they're tax payers too. Let's carry this through in an illustration.

Happyville government is sick of the Mom and Pop grocery store, they want a nice big A&P so more folks from Bigshotville will come spend their money in Happyville (all that sales tax, yippee!). Oh no, Mr. S. Acid's house is only 10 feet off the main intersection and it would be the best place to build the new A&P, let's just 'take' it (we'll salve our consciences by giving him an average of what the nearby houses are worth and call it even). A year later, Mr. Acid has lost the home his mother left him when she died of cancer five years ago and he has restored and moved his new wife and 2 month old baby girl into, but, hey, Bigshotville residents now have a much smaller commute to contribute to the Happyville coffers, what's not to like?

Did the local government consider that he had planned to raise his daughter there? Did it reimburse him for what the renovations in progress would've made the house worth, especially since he had already sunk his own money into the project, willing to hunker down and wait until the pay off arrived with the completion of the work? How about moving expenses and finding a new place to live? Is the government also going to help him with the physical labor of moving? The answer to all these questions is NO.

Yeah, eminent domain sounds great, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT HAPPENING TO YOU.

[*mipadi*]

eminent domain is a nessisary implement.

without it, roads would be hard to build, as would dams, bridges, docks, etc.

the good of eminent domain outweight the bad.

The argument with the recent court decision is not about dams, bridges, schools, and other public goods; it's about taking private land and using it for other private purposes.

[sadolakced acid]

The argument with the recent court decision is not about dams, bridges, schools, and other public goods; it's about taking private land and using it for other private purposes.

ahh, yes. as long as the private purposes benefit the community.

emminent domain has been used for dams, bridges, schools, etc. before, and was needed.

emminent domain will continue to be used for those.
the supreme court ruled correctly; the constitution does allow it.

sure, that aspect of emminet domain needs modification. but it doens't mean emminet domain is all bad.

[anoniez]

OK so I decided to resurrect this topic since eminent domain for private enterprise is the NFL LD debate topic for jan-feb =]

My main argument against eminent domain for private enterprise is that the main role of the government is to protect individual rights, not to promote economic progress. The takings clause of the 5th amendment says eminent domain has to be for "public use." Dams, bridges, and schools are public use. Highways, roads, and infrastructure are public use. Wal-Marts, tourist resorts (as in the case of Kelo v. New London), and McDonald's are private use.

By taking away private property and giving it to, say, a McDonald's, that's not public use - you have to pay to buy things at that McDonald's. You're violating that person's property rights under the 5th amendment for taking their property away for something that isn't private use.

I'll get a little esoteric here- the government doing this also justifies private citizens taking away each other's property as well on a moral level. In the Kelo example, the justification for how a tourist resort was "public use" was that it'd draw jobs for the area.. so the government was justifying its taking away private property by saying it's acting on behalf of its citizens. So basically.. if the individual has no right to take by force his neighbor's justly-acquired property, the government can't have such a right to act collectively for the people over whom it governs.

[*kryogenix*]

^I love your member title. "I'll beer another one with a bullet!"

I don't like eminent domain. Killing cripples/terminally ill/AIDS patients would benefit society, but doing so would be wrong.

[lavadrugs]

I don't think it's fair just another excuse for already rich republicans to get richer

[ComradeRed]

The bad of eminent domain mathematically outweighs the good.

Let's say the government or a business has a project that is worth $1,000,000 and they need a piece of land that is owned by a private person.

If that private person valued the property at less than $1,000,000, then there is no problem--the government or business offers to pay the person some amount between what the person is willing to sell for and $1,000,000 and both sides are better off (the person would rather have the money and the government/business would rather have the property).

Now let's say the person values the property at more than $1,000,000. Then eminent domain is needed because the person values the property at more than the government does. But this means that the bad of eminent domain is more than the good (since the loss to the person is what he values the property at minus the "fair price" while the gain to the government is $1,000,000 minus the "fair price" -- since we know that the person's value of the property is more than $1,000,000, his loss outweighs the government's gain--so the net gain to society is negative).

From a purely utilitarian perspective, eminent domain is a bad idea. The whole idea of a free market is that the highest bidder gets the property--this is the most efficient way to allocate resources because the people who have the best use for or get the most happiness from things get them. But eminent domain makes it so that a lower bidder gets the property than the person who wants it more.