Is eminent domain legitimate?

[Machismo]

Of course it's legitimate.

This inevitably seems to crop up because people confuse property ownership with sovereignty. Property ownership, and especially land ownership, is an arrangement you have with the government, where they choose to protect your rights with regard to that property, within certain limits.

Eminent domain is one of those limits.

By standing against it, you are not defending property ownership. You're trying to defend a fundamentally false claim that you and your land were sovereign and thus outside the control and management of the government.

Sure, eminent domain is a tool that can be used badly, but that's reason to take issue with the justifications of a particular application of the law, not the concept itself.

- - - Updated - - -



You're one of those falling into the confusion of property ownership with sovereignty.

They're completely unrelated concepts. A property owner on the border has as much "right" to prevent government enforcement of border regulations on his property as he does for denying their right to arrest him for murdering and cannibalizing hitchhikers he's drugged and taken back to his basement.

In short, absolutely no such rights.

Actually, I support all property being private, and voluntary governance based on people, not borders.

- - - Updated - - -

I take issue with the concept itself. Only 1 possible exception: in a national defense type of crisis. And I mean crisis, not "gee it would be nice to build something there."

Absent that, the government can f right off. And I will base a lot of my vote on candidate's position on the issue.

So, does that mean you oppose the Keystone XXL pipeline?

[Realitytrembles]

What about a transportation system that will benefit hundreds of thousands of people, free up congestion, save people both time and money, and make the city cleaner? Should we not force one person to sell their property at a fair market value for that project?

No. /10chars

[Endus]

Actually, I support all property being private, and voluntary governance based on people, not borders.

"Voluntary governance" is an oxymoron. If it's voluntary, you don't need governance in the first place. And because it's voluntary, you've got no capacity to handle anyone who won't cooperate.

FWIW, I do fully understand the idea of near-anarchist philosophy; I used to find things like rational anarchism appealing. I'm not disputing that what you're talking about isn't possible, I'm nitpicking terminology.

Also, you seem to be arguing that every citizen and their property should be sovereign, which again, is not about property ownership.

[cubby]

No. /10chars

Why?

/10chars

[Realitytrembles]

But you haven't provided any justification for it whatsoever. And that's what I was asking for.

I don't accept "it's just what I feel, man" as a valid argument worth considering.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


I argue that short of a national defense crisis, eminent domain is a violation of the 4th amendment. SCOTUS f'ed this up. I would support a constitutional amendment severely curtailing eminent domain.

- - - Updated - - -

Why?

/10chars

see above /10chars

[Endus]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


I argue that short of a national defense crisis, eminent domain is a violation of the 4th amendment. SCOTUS f'ed this up.

The word "unreasonable" contradicts your entire position on this, since all you're really doing is disagreeing with the government about what is "reasonable", and frankly, they're the ones who decide that, not you.

If you really want to stick by the Constitution, you're allowing for eminent domain, which is clearly permitted under the 4th Amendment as cited. That your rights are protected against unreasonable seizures necessarily means there are reasonable seizures. Which is what we call seizures under measures like eminent domain.

[Machismo]

"Voluntary governance" is an oxymoron. If it's voluntary, you don't need governance in the first place. And because it's voluntary, you've got no capacity to handle anyone who won't cooperate.

FWIW, I do fully understand the idea of near-anarchist philosophy; I used to find things like rational anarchism appealing. I'm not disputing that what you're talking about isn't possible, I'm nitpicking terminology.

Also, you seem to be arguing that every citizen and their property should be sovereign, which again, is not about property ownership.

That's like saying a libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. the point of voluntary governance is feasible, and has been accomplished on very small scales. People are free to participate, or not. they are free to enjoy the benefits, or not.

I don't think this will ever come to fruition in my lifetime... or ever.

But, I would like to move closer to such a thing. I think it's possible to have testing zones in the United States (or even dirty Canada), where such voluntaryist experiments can take place.

- - - Updated - - -

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


I argue that short of a national defense crisis, eminent domain is a violation of the 4th amendment. SCOTUS f'ed this up. I would support a constitutional amendment severely curtailing eminent domain.

- - - Updated - - -



see above /10chars

So, does that mean you oppose the Keystone Pipeline?

[cubby]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


I argue that short of a national defense crisis, eminent domain is a violation of the 4th amendment. SCOTUS f'ed this up. I would support a constitutional amendment severely curtailing eminent domain.

- - - Updated - - -



see above /10chars

Eminent domain is reasonable, because of the litany of reasons above and in court cases around the country. You should read some.

Thought you had some legitimate reasons for it - you just don't like it . . . because . . . and no one is going to change your mind. 'Murica!

[Endus]

That's like saying a libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. the point of voluntary governance is feasible, and has been accomplished on very small scales. People are free to participate, or not. they are free to enjoy the benefits, or not.

Voluntary cooperation, sure.

Governance is where I see the conflict necessarily occur. Since anyone who doesn't agree with the governance is free to ignore it, since it's voluntary, so it doesn't actually govern anything.

It's the difference between having to pay your pizza delivery guy for the pizzas he delivered (which is governed; not paying is theft and actionable), and not tipping the delivery guy even if it's local culture to do so, because tipping is voluntary and not governed. If you start mandating that tipping is required and penalizing those who don't, it's governed, and no longer voluntary. If you aren't, then it's not penalized, and not governed, and IS voluntary. It's a switch that flips either way. It can't be both on and off, at the same time.

Like I said, nitpicky.

[Machismo]

Voluntary cooperation, sure.

Governance is where I see the conflict necessarily occur. Since anyone who doesn't agree with the governance is free to ignore it, since it's voluntary, so it doesn't actually govern anything.

It's the difference between having to pay your pizza delivery guy for the pizzas he delivered (which is governed; not paying is theft and actionable), and not tipping the delivery guy even if it's local culture to do so, because tipping is voluntary and not governed.

Well, since it would be voluntary, they can choose to participate, or not. Of course, that could mean traveling on someone else's property may be rather expensive, or even barred entirely. You could have multiple types of governments, all within the same physical area, with agreements between each one... or not.

[Realitytrembles]

The word "unreasonable" contradicts your entire position on this, since all you're really doing is disagreeing with the government about what is "reasonable", and frankly, they're the ones who decide that, not you.

If you really want to stick by the Constitution, you're allowing for eminent domain, which is clearly permitted under the 4th Amendment as cited. That your rights are protected against unreasonable seizures necessarily means there are reasonable seizures. Which is what we call seizures under measures like eminent domain.

And I argue that the limit of reasonable is for national defense emergencies. Period.

The government decides? Not the people?

" Here, sir, the people govern!" --- Alexander Hamilton

I will vote against candidates who don't place severe limits on eminent domain.

[Machismo]

And I argue that the limit of reasonable is for national defense emergencies. Period.

The government decides? Not the people?

" Here, sir, the people govern!" --- Alexander Hamilton

I will vote against candidates who don't place severe limits on eminent domain.

Trump supports and practiced eminent domain. Did you vote against him?

[Endus]

And I argue that the limit of reasonable is for national defense emergencies. Period.

You've yet to provide any shred of justification for this. Your citation of the 4th Amendment contradicts you.

The government decides? Not the people?

Unequivocally yes, particularly in the USA, since the Founding Fathers took concrete steps to ensure the common rabble could not seize control directly.

That's explicitly the main intended purpose of the Electoral College.

I will vote against candidates who don't place severe limits on eminent domain.

You're free to do so, but it doesn't mean you've justified doing so. You can also vote against candidates who wear red, but that doesn't mean that stance makes rational sense.

Your entire argument thus far has been to cite the 4th Amendment (which supports eminent domain), and declare that you don't like it. And that's it. I'm asking for something that justifies your stance.

[Beazy]

Not really bad imo, my good friend got ED'd about 10 years ago. They gave him a SHIT TON of money. If I recall correctly he had 60 acres, they wanted to extend the highway in his direction. So like 20 of the guys who lived out there and had land, teamed up, asked for a specific amount, and they actually got it. Its not always a bad deal.

[Endus]

What about a transportation system that will benefit hundreds of thousands of people, free up congestion, save people both time and money, and make the city cleaner? Should we not force one person to sell their property at a fair market value for that project?

Digging back a bit to pull this out, but consider an even more extreme example. Picture a major land developer for a city buying a large stretch of land where he knows the city will need to eventually build a highway. And then he subdivides the land, leaving a 3-foot-wide strip that stretches across where the highway would need to pass. He then demands the city pay him $30 million dollars for the tiny strip of land blocking their development of the highway, holding the city for ransom, as they've already sunk a lot of money into planning, development, and land purchasing.

The strip isn't worth $30 million. It's worth maybe $15,000, and that's being generous. Obviously, his price is unreasonable.

Eminent domain exists so the city can say "fuck it, here's $15,000, we're taking the land, dickwad." It means they're not beholden to private owners bullying them and restricting development, for their own personal gains.

You can certainly argue against particular uses of eminent domain, as to whether there was sufficient need to use that tool, but arguing against it wholesale? That seems silly.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really bad imo, my good friend got ED'd about 10 years ago. They gave him a SHIT TON of money. If I recall correctly he had 60 acres, they wanted to extend the highway in his direction. So like 20 of the guys who lived out there and had land, teamed up, asked for a specific amount, and they actually got it. Its not always a bad deal.

Right. Eminent Domain isn't stealing. It's paying fair market price. The government is essentially choosing to "evict" you from the land, but is paying you fair compensation for doing so.

This is what I mean when I say that ownership isn't sovereignty. Land ownership doesn't make you kind of your land. It's an arrangement with the State, and one that's open to renegotiation and modification.

[cubby]

Digging back a bit to pull this out, but consider an even more extreme example. Picture a major land developer for a city buying a large stretch of land where he knows the city will need to eventually build a highway. And then he subdivides the land, leaving a 3-foot-wide strip that stretches across where the highway would need to pass. He then demands the city pay him $30 million dollars for the tiny strip of land blocking their development of the highway, holding the city for ransom, as they've already sunk a lot of money into planning, development, and land purchasing.

The strip isn't worth $30 million. It's worth maybe $15,000, and that's being generous. Obviously, his price is unreasonable.

Eminent domain exists so the city can say "fuck it, here's $15,000, we're taking the land, dickwad." It means they're not beholden to private owners bullying them and restricting development, for their own personal gains.

You can certainly argue against particular uses of eminent domain, as to whether there was sufficient need to use that tool, but arguing against it wholesale? That seems silly.

Precisely. The very relevant extreme example in the other direction where eminent domain is not only for the public good, but it ensures the public good isn't mired by selfish people out to take advantage of the system.

And of course there are examples where individuals have taken advantage of the system using eminent domain vis a vis political favors to main personal financial gains. But those aren't what this is about.

[Beazy]

Right. Eminent Domain isn't stealing. It's paying fair market price. The government is essentially choosing to "evict" you from the land, but is paying you fair compensation for doing so.

This is what I mean when I say that ownership isn't sovereignty. Land ownership doesn't make you kind of your land. It's an arrangement with the State, and one that's open to renegotiation and modification.

Yeah, they aren't out to get you, they are out to make highways and trains etc. Things that help society. I'm pretty sure he got about 25% more $$ than what he was originally quoted. He said the state didnt want to go to trial, etc. It was actually in the states best interest to pay the guys the higher price so they could begin construction on their own time and not have to sit around and wait for legal red tape that would eventually cost the state far more resources than just cold hard cash.

In the end, everyone wins. As long as they arent one of those "dont Tread on me, articles of confederation, i do not consent" free person type people.

[cubby]

Kelo v. New London was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time.

Also keep in mind that while that questionable ruling was recent and heavily divided (5-4), the original ruling on the constitutionality of eminent domain was 8-0 (Berman v Parker). A unanimous decision out of SCOTUS is not exactly common, and very pertinent to people questioning the constitutionality of it.

[Machismo]

Also keep in mind that while that questionable ruling was recent and heavily divided (5-4), the original ruling on the constitutionality of eminent domain was 8-0 (Berman v Parker). A unanimous decision out of SCOTUS is not exactly common, and very pertinent to people questioning the constitutionality of it.

I fully agree that it is constitutional, I simple oppose its application. Kelp was a bad decision, because it really opened the door to corporatism and abuse. It offered a financial incentive for governments to screw people out of house and home.

[cubby]

I fully agree that it is constitutional, I simple oppose its application. Kelp was a bad decision, because it really opened the door to corporatism and abuse. It offered a financial incentive for governments to screw people out of house and home.

I have trouble disagreeing with you on this one. Wasn't the best moment for SCOTUS.