Baseball v. Property
Is a Baseball stadium and an Apple Pie factory more Amercian than property rights?
here...
This is scary because the landmark takings decision last year will make this kind of...well...basically thievery...to become more common.
Thus undermining our ability to own and use our own land. Thereby nullifying the property rights among the populace. Creating a corporate swell of businessman who will thereby take power away from the people and undermine our democracy...wait a second...maybe it's too late...
here...
This is scary because the landmark takings decision last year will make this kind of...well...basically thievery...to become more common.
Thus undermining our ability to own and use our own land. Thereby nullifying the property rights among the populace. Creating a corporate swell of businessman who will thereby take power away from the people and undermine our democracy...wait a second...maybe it's too late...
3 Comments:
I think it's probably a misnomer to call it thievery, unless you are thoroughly convinced that what the government pays for the land is actually less than what the land is worth. In that case, then they are only "stealing" X:
A - B = X
where A is equal to what the property is really worth and B is equal to what the government pays.
This is probably the case. So the government is stealing, in a way, but they aren't doing it without due process of law. I don't really know how I would resolve this situation. It seems that the political process is much more effective at a local level, and perhaps as long as it is local governments that are doing this kind of thing then there is an effective check on the eminent domain power.
You're right..
It probably is a misnomer to call it thievery...but that's just what it looks like.
I understand that just compensation will be awarded, but there are things the government will take that have no compensation. The ability of a man to feel secure on land that he has paid for is priceless.
Above this, it is thievery when it is not being taken for public use. Some homes are destroyed to further capitalist endeavors like GM factories or movie theatres or in the case of the simpsons, monorails.
No, they are not taking without due process of law. However, they are taking under erroneous precedent. See Kelo v. City of New London Justice O’Connor correctly noted, “[u]nder the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded ... .” Dissenting opinion, slip at 1.
It may not be theivery, but what else do you call it when the government "justly" compensates Peter for his land and gives that land to Paul merely because the government thinks Paul will make better use of the land than Peter?
It may not be thievery, but it's damn close.
Awesome abortion post by the way...thinking about a way to resopnd. I think you had the "unbias" thing perfected until you got to the really sticky situation of when life begins. Then, I believe, the arguement gets clouded. I will give specifics on your post later on. My house tonight at 6!
Thanks, and you're absolutely right on the takings theory.
I know my argument was getting cloudy, so I'll work on another post to clear it up and raise some new issues, and address the comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home