More Emminent Domain Abuse

[Kidlicious]

Here's something to help some of you on the fence about Libertarian idealism.

Common sense approach: If it doesn't work fix it.

Libertarian approach: Don't fix it because it's the owner's right to leave it broken.

Libertarianism.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's ok. Don't worry about it. I prefer to have improvements made so that people have jobs, roads etc.

Leave off the roads argument already that is accounted for in the orginal and legit use of ED. As for jobs, there is no guarantee now is there. All that can be said is that opportunity may or may not be more plentiful. Take as a for instance the numerous Walmart instances of ED abuse. As a consequence it becomes apparent that the claims of increased jobs from their ED conspiracies with local gov actually net less jobs and less tax income. Good show! Too bad tho' as all those poor Ms. Jacksons have been kicked to the curb.

Ms. Jackson also enjoys things like roads and jobs.

She also likes a roof over her head. In the meanwhile while she is anxiously awaiting the build of the new Pfizer plant or Walmart super center (in the vain hope that maybe she can land a job there), she lives in a van down by the river. Maybe she is one of the lucky ones that surivives the winter. Good show #2.

OTOH you've got good ole Mr.& Ms. Brown who are retired and have nothing but their little cottage and SS, shuffle them off to the recycle tanks nothing left for them to contribute to the greater good. Good show #3. Yey greater good.

In Fresno a vote was taken, and overwelmingly approved of. Jobs are good for everyone; workers, business, and govt.

I suppose EVERYONE voted for it as you earlier implied. (Good ole tyranny of the majority)

Tell me did the vote entail a condemnation as was the case in Connecticut so that people got completely shafted or were the evictees simply partially shafted with a paltry sum a fraction of its real worth. Personally a 6 month package to me is laughable.

Your going to have to stop being so ridiculous.

The ideal Libertarian society would have plenty of economic improvements made to it and it would be very organized, NOT! There would be a revolution within 1 year.

As opposed to the ideal communist society which has yet to ever exist even for a nanosecond.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Here's something to help some of you on the fence about Communist idealism.

Common sense approach: If it doesn't work fix it, cause after all it will appreciate its value to you as the owner in the event you ever want to consentually sell it.

Communist approach: Don't fix it because it's better to simply steal the good stuff and shuffle the dissidents off to the salt mines.

Communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Leave off the roads argument already that is accounted for in the orginal and legit use of ED. As for jobs, there is no guarantee now is there. All that can be said is that opportunity may or may not be more plentiful.

I was simply requiring the reader to already understand that spending equals jobs, but I forgot that I was talking to libertarians. Sorry.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Corruption of ED is not the same as corruption in govt.

ED, by definition, can only be performed by the government.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Normal people do not support the rule of a law which prevents the community from benefiting.

Yes they do. They support obeying the law but pressuring for change. And it is rational and commonsense because if people only obeyed laws they considered correct, all hell would break loose.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The SCOTUS is taking up a case whether economic development is "public use."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=3&u=/ap/20040928/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Thanks Lefty. Here's hoping they rule appropriately to defend property rights.

[Kidlicious]

I would like to see them set some type of limit. From the article it doesn't sound likely though.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I was simply requiring the reader to already understand that spending equals jobs, but I forgot that I was talking to libertarians. Sorry.

hmm an interesting quote considering that you seem to disapprove of any significant accumulation of private capital which could be spent.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Note that in the above article is a summary of the States' positions on their own constitutions. What will apply, of course, is the more restrictive of the state or federal constituion.

[Mr. Harley]

Now what would be nice is for a Scalia-Stevens majority, Scalia reference the strict constitutionalist leanings and Stevens standing up for the little guy. Add in Kennedy and Ginsburg plus one other justice and you can get the weirdest majority opinion in recent court decisions. Hey, maybe five different opinions for the majority.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Combinations like that have happened before. Scalia can sometimes be a free ageny, because his constructionalist ideas can back different sides, depending on the issue.

I just read a case (Conflicts of Law case, I think) where the dissent was Antonin Scalia and Thurgood Marshall.

[Mr. Harley]

I know, that's why I mentioned it. It's not inconceivable in this case. Could you give a link for that case, I would find that interesting to read. My biggest problem with Scalia, is that reference the ix and x amendments, he almost always sides with the state (as in individual states read states rights) versus the individual when they come in conflict. Since he has a choice (the constitution does not put one above the other) as a strict constitutionalist, and he's up there and I'm not, his opinion is the one that counts. That's why I'll tend to favor Stevens or Kennedy types for that reason, and I let my voting reflect that.