More Emminent Domain Abuse

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I believe if you followed the tone of our previous conversations regarding taxation etc. you'll find the theme the same.

Sure, because you conservatives want to cut all the programs that help people. That kind of tax cut certainly doesn't help.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, I'll buy something else to eat for cheaper. On the other hand, I do need to eat, and I might decide that the value of me eating exceeds the value of me saving money, and I'll buy the apples anyway. Of course price equals value! If the price is perceived as too highly out of proportion to preceived value, then people won't buy the product. If enough people feel this way, then the price will have to drop.

Ok, you buy something else. So what? What does that have to do with the value or price of the apples? I'll tell you. Because the price was greater than the value.

It's more fair for the government to impose both a transaction and a price than for two individuals to agree to a transaction and a price? How do ya figure that one?

Because when you have a buyer that needs something very badly, and one seller of that good who knows that the buyer needs it, the seller is going to ask for a very unfair price. It's called price gouging.

Great, so it doesn't actually matter what the Constitution says or means, just what some lawyer can twist the words to seem to mean, right?

Are you a lawyer? You're sounding like one here.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
That is the problem with eminent domain, as currently abused. If you use it for the reservoir for the dam, or for the new interstate, the government retains ownership - or at least it did, the TVA WAS a governmental body. That is what the framers of the constitution envisaged. If the government DOES NOT retain ownership AND use (i.e. I own the land and then I rent it to you for $1 a year for the next 50 years) then it is government coerced transfer of property - read wealth - from one group to the next.

The only true violation is forcing people to move from a place that they are attached to. Eminent domain does not make people poorer as you are claiming. That's ridiculous.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Sure, because you conservatives want to cut all the programs that help people. That kind of tax cut certainly doesn't help.

Thanks for the open minded stereotyping.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Thanks for the open minded stereotyping.

If I'm not mistaken you already called me a liberal in this thread. Or was that some other conservative.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Nope not me. I'ld go for more flattering terms like commie nutbag.

[Kidlicious]

I am a little nutty, and a lot commie.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Mr Fun -

Apparently you deplore me more since your entry into this debate is to chastise me and not the government.
Obviously not every liberal believes the same thing, ever hear of generalisations? But it's no coincidence that liberals love this power given how it fits right in with their re-distributionist philosophy.

Even given that I understand that there are liberals who would support this abuse of power and wealth, to me, fundamentally, it makes no sense -- to me -- for any liberal to support this, since it redistributes wealth to those who are already wealthy.

[Kidlicious]

Mr. Fun you are being as silly as the Libertarians. There is no re-distribution. The owners are compensated.

[Agathon]

If the government couldn't compel people to sell their property, the result would be chaos. There is always one clown who doesn't want to sell his house, even though his refusal would cost the state several million dollars to reroute a needed motorway or some other important public project.

As long as fair compensation is offered, there's nothing wrong.

[Berzerker]

Hmm...only a clown would refuse to "sell" his property to the state? That's why planners set the route and then see if the property can be bought before wasting millions on construction only to find out someone doesn't want to sell...

One comment about those of you using the liberal brush to tar the eminent domain debate. In the majority of modern cases where eminent domain is being abused, it's for industrial development. As in larger businesses. Excuse me, liberal industrial businesses?

If you don't think liberals like growing the tax base by ripping off poorer people to subsidise business you haven't been paying much attention to the budget over the past 40 years. This case is in Connecticut, hardly a bastion of conservatism... This practice of using eminent domain to transfer property among the citizenry exploded under liberals...when their ideology began setting policy...

[Agathon]

Hmm...only a clown would refuse to "sell" his property to the state? That's why planners set the route and then see if the property can be bought before wasting millions on construction only to find out someone doesn't want to sell...

My claim is only that if the state is not allowed to compel sales at a fair price in matters like this, nothing would ever get done. There are plenty of people who would just refuse to sell purely for the pleasure of messing things up.

Of course, there are abuses, and that is wrong. But to ban the practice completely would mean nothing ever got done.

[Kidlicious]

Berzerker doesn't want anything to get done though.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Berzerker doesn't want anything to get done though.

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.

[Berzerker]

Hehe, good one Kid.

My claim is only that if the state is not allowed to compel sales at a fair price in matters like this, nothing would ever get done. There are plenty of people who would just refuse to sell purely for the pleasure of messing things up.

The Framers understood that, but they also understood the danger of this kind of corruption so they limited the power to the construction of government facilities.

Of course, there are abuses, and that is wrong. But to ban the practice completely would mean nothing ever got done.

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

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.

That would defeat the purpose of liberalism - to re-distribute other people's property.