More Emminent Domain Abuse

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sikander


Still it seems reasonable to meet him half way and at least not do the abusive stuff, no matter what your politics are with the possible exception of those who have a personal stake in the development project.

Yes exactly, and since "Abuse" of Emminent Domain was the topic and point of my OP I see little reason to continually rail against Libs like Berz and Floyd who have allowed for its legitamate constitutionally provided use.

Their point and mine is that ED has been transmogrified (for fans of Clavin and Hobbes ) into a vehicle for property transfer to other interests and goes completely against the original intent of ED.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
Still it seems reasonable to meet him half way and at least not do the abusive stuff, no matter what your politics are with the possible exception of those who have a personal stake in the development project.

I don't believe that transfering property to private entities is abuse as long as it is in the interest of the community. The libertarians are saying that that is immoral because it favors business. Hello! This is capitalism. They need to get out of their fantasy world. Capitalism favors business.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The abuses are the practice, this power is now used more to transfer property to other interests than to government.

Are you talking about corruption or just reselling the property, because it doesn't matter if the govt were to keep the property. There is still a transfer of property. There are always entities that prosper from govt action.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't believe that transfering property to private entities is abuse as long as it is in the interest of the community. The libertarians are saying that that is immoral because it favors business. Hello! This is capitalism. They need to get out of their fantasy world. Capitalism favors business.

Ring ring, reality phone for you Kid. Libs are strict consitutionalists who take umbrage that the constitution has been hijacked and perverted to allow these patently unfair and nefarious delaings. Whether it benefits community or not, it was not the intent. Any person worth their salt understands the underpinings of a successful capitalistic society relies heavily on respect for rule of law and by extension clearly defined and unabrogated property rights.

What you ascribe as mechanism of capitalism is not but more over is corruption. A corruption you allow for because at certain times it fits your agenda. A corruption I call bull**** on because it is indeed corruption of capitalism and rule of civlized society.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Are you talking about corruption or just reselling the property, because it doesn't matter if the govt were to keep the property. There is still a transfer of property. There are always entities that prosper from govt action.

I won't speak for them (Berz and Floyd) except to say they have allowed for ED, IF and ONLY IF government retains the property for societal uses (such as roads, parks etc.). The second transfer of property to private interests shows the true corruption of ED as a vehicle for property redistribution.

[Kidlicious]

Corruption of ED is not the same as corruption in govt. And another thing. You keep saying property redistribution as if some people are getting poorer. Why are you doing that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ring ring, reality phone for you Kid. Libs are strict consitutionalists who take umbrage that the constitution has been hijacked and perverted to allow these patently unfair and nefarious delaings. Whether it benefits community or not, it was not the intent. Any person worth their salt understands the underpinings of a successful capitalistic society relies heavily on respect for rule of law and by extension clearly defined and unabrogated property rights.

Normal people do not support the rule of a law which prevents the community from benefiting. That's not rational. It's not common sense. And only a special interest would support such laws.

What you ascribe as mechanism of capitalism is not but more over is corruption. A corruption you allow for because at certain times it fits your agenda. A corruption I call bull**** on because it is indeed corruption of capitalism and rule of civlized society.

Capitalism is not civil. It is a violent, abusive, exploitive system.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Corruption of ED is not the same as corruption in govt. And another thing. You keep saying property redistribution as if some people are getting poorer. Why are you doing that?

I would agree ED is not corruption IN government it is a corruption OF government (as defined by such bodies as the Supreme Court of Connecticut).

As for whether people are getting poorer, damn straight. if poor Ms. Jackson could have milked developer for more bucks by sitting pat on first offers only to have the government condemn sieze and then hand over her land to said developer, I'ld say she pretty much got ripped off.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Normal people do not support the rule of a law which prevents the community from benefiting. That's not rational. It's not common sense. And only a special interest would support such laws.

Ummm ...no. Normal people support the rule of law (intellectually speaking that is) as they realize an abrogation of one persons rights could very well happen next to them. It only when selfishness,greed and envy come into play that they look for the 'what's in it for them' that allows them to say, "Sure rip off little old Ms. Jackson property at least I get an employment opportunity with Pfizer".

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As for whether people are getting poorer, damn straight. if poor Ms. Jackson could have milked developer for more bucks by sitting pat on first offers only to have the government condemn sieze and then hand over her land to said developer, I'ld say she pretty much got ripped off.

If she would have been able to milk the developer she would only be doing so at the expense of the people who would benefit from the improvement. Preventing her from doing that isn't making her poorer than she would be otherwise if no one were interestd in buying her property in the first place.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ummm ...no. Normal people support the rule of law (intellectually speaking that is) as they realize an abrogation of one persons rights could very well happen next to them. It only when selfishness,greed and envy come into play that they look for the 'what's in it for them' that allows them to say, "Sure rip off little old Ms. Jackson property at least I get an employment opportunity with Pfizer".

If people are being made better off, and they are (everyone benefits from ED), then they approve. Again, ED is supported by the voters of the communities. You guys are the minority here, because you are a special interest. You want more compensation for your property at the expense of most people.

[Kidlicious]

It takes awhile to figure out what these libs are getting at but I think I'm finally doing so here. They want property owners to get a windfall from selling their property. If they don't get it they claim they are ripped off.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It takes awhile to figure out what these libs are getting at but I think I'm finally doing so here. They want property owners to get a windfall from selling their property. If they don't get it they claim they are ripped off.

I would even support your right to decide whether or not you wanted to sell your home rather than have it seized (at great personal loss)for purposes of transfer to private interests in the so called name of greater public good.

Just as I would support your right to voice communist propoganda even if the government decided your sedition was better off silenced for the greater public good.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If people are being made better off, and they are (everyone benefits from ED), then they approve.

Everyone. Ummm....No not poor Ms. Jackson

Again, ED is supported by the voters of the communities.

Really where was such a vote taken? In any event a nonsequitor as that would imply by having all your neighbors vote they could simply seize all your possessions, just becasue it serves the greater good. Good show. Why not simply legalize burglury? For that matter you eat too much. Your life is an infringment on the greater good. Lets just off you, ehhh?

You guys are the minority here, because you are a special interest. You want more compensation for your property at the expense of most people.

Seems to me everyone else in this thread has been pretty much aligned that abuse of ED is a real problem. Who is the minority voice here?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I would even support your right to decide whether or not you wanted to sell your home rather than have it seized (at great personal loss)for purposes of transfer to private interests in the so called name of greater public good.

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

Everyone. Ummm....No not poor Ms. Jackson

Ms. Jackson also enjoys things like roads and jobs.

Really where was such a vote taken?

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

In any event a nonsequitor as that would imply by having all your neighbors vote they could simply seize all your possessions, just becasue it serves the greater good. Good show. Why not simply legalize burglury? For that matter you eat too much. Your life is an infringment on the greater good. Lets just off you, ehhh?

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.