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.

[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.