More Emminent Domain Abuse

[David Floyd]

Yes, everyone needs a job. Need doesn't create entitlement, though. I need $10000 to pay off student loans. Doesn't mean anyone owes it to me, though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Except the property owner, who might feel better off keeping his/her property. But then again, when the majority wants to take something, then might pretty much makes right, doesn't it?

No. What makes it right is that the property owner is compensated. Of course they aren't compensated for whatever they want for it. Much like libertarian political theory, that doesn't work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, everyone needs a job. Need doesn't create entitlement, though. I need $10000 to pay off student loans. Doesn't mean anyone owes it to me, though.

If I truely need something, and you don't then I do have a right to it. Saying that makes just as much sense as what you are saying. It's just a biased subjective claim.

[JohnT]

People in Fresno have been waiting for a long time for the private sector to create jobs. It's not going to happen without businesses here. There has to be places for businesses here or they can't come.

What Kid isn't telling y'all is that Fresno County is mostly agricultural, with the largest value of ag goods produced by any county in the nation (over $3 billion worth). And, as anybody with a bit of agriculture experience knows, unemployment, especially seasonal unemployment, is more common in farm-heavy counties than urban (or even non-farm rural) counties.

[David Floyd]

No. What makes it right is that the property owner is compensated.

Value is not an absolute figure. What is worth $1 to you may be worth $1000 to me. What's more important, though, is the issue of ownership.

Much like libertarian political theory, that doesn't work.

*cough cough*

Pot, kettle, black.

[Kidlicious]

JohnT,

I missed your point.

[David Floyd]

If I truely need something, and you don't then I do have a right to it.

How do you figure that?

Saying that makes just as much sense as what you are saying. It's just a biased subjective claim.

No, it's based on an objective claim - that is, I'm morally entitled to my body, and by extension, what my body (myself) produces, and by further extension, what I acquire as a result of my production.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Value is not an absolute figure. What is worth $1 to you may be worth $1000 to me. What's more important, though, is the issue of ownership.

If value isn't absolute than it isn't objective either. So you aren't helping your claim here.

[JohnT]

Point: long-term job growth doesn't go hand-in-hand with agricultural communities.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Point: long-term job growth doesn't go hand-in-hand with agricultural communities.

The joys of the free market.

[David Floyd]

If value isn't absolute than it isn't objective either. So you aren't helping your claim here.

The relativity of value is irrelevant to the issue of ownership.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The relativity of value is irrelevant to the issue of ownership.

How do you own things?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The joys of the free market.

Given that agriculture is seasonal, a fact that is, irrespective of any market, this "retort" is just silly. Given that it is also increasingly mechanized, it dives almost into the "uneducated" category.

[David Floyd]

How do you own things?

If what you are getting at is "how do you conduct transactions", then obviously, two people agree on value.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT




Given that agriculture is seasonal, a fact that is, irrespective of any market, this "retort" is just silly. Given that it is also increasingly mechanized, it dives almost into the "uneducated" category.

It's free market. Not irrespective at all. Maybe you need a nap.