Property Seizures for Private Development Ok

[trumptman]

You have no private property (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_wr,0,348748.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.


So a big money developer pays the mayor to condemn your house and that is considered progressive?

This is the biggest pile of crap ruling I have read in a while.

Nick

[pfflam]

Originally posted by trumptman
You have no private property (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_wr,0,348748.story?coll=la-home-headlines)



So a big money developer pays the mayor to condemn your house and that is considered progressive?

This is the biggest pile of crap ruling I have read in a while.

Nick Sounds, not like progressivism but rather Government doing big-businesses bidding.

Remember, this is for a private developer!!

and yes it is crap: but blame the right people and blame the right political tendency: nothing should hamper big profit-making-!! that just might eventually trickle down to aid the 'community'.

With that said: it is nothing new. Immanent Domain, for the NY City freeways . . . Robert Moses et al. the distruction of the Bronx and Brooklyn . .

And, enforcing sudden land use violations and zoning rules that have lain fallow for years is the favored means of booting the poor out of a neighborhood that has nice old, but slightly run-down houses . . . Making it gentrifiable: making room for rich-yuppie scum landlords and buyers who can afford that extra coat of paint on the wainscotting

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
You have no private property (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_wr,0,348748.story?coll=la-home-headlines)



So a big money developer pays the mayor to condemn your house and that is considered progressive?

This is the biggest pile of crap ruling I have read in a while.

Nick

We are in complete agreement! As a property owner and a landlord myself I live nearer to city developement all the time. It's understood that if the city wants your property they can get it. You can't fight city hall. However if a private developer has this kind of influence it's garbage! Letting this sort of thing happen is further proof of our eroding freedoms. Rulings like this are dangerous since they set precedent.

[ColanderOfDeath]

This seems pretty dubious to me. Eminent domain for public uses is one matter but seizing private property for another private party is another matter. I'm amazed that this court would take this position given the makeup of the court and that Sandra Day O'Conner went against it. I guess Kennedy flipped.

This will allow developers to buy out pretty much anything if they can leverage enough capital. The corporations win again!

Too bad the Congress is playing politics with flag burning because I can think of a few other useful amendments they could be passing instead.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
This seems pretty dubious to me. Eminent domain for public uses is one matter but seizing private property for another private party is another matter. I'm amazed that this court would take this position given the makeup of the court and that Sandra Day O'Conner went against it. I guess Kennedy flipped.

This will allow developers to buy out pretty much anything if they can leverage enough capital. The corporations win again!

Too bad the Congress is playing politics with flag burning because I can think of a few other useful amendments they could be passing instead.

Well said!

[Harald]

Originally posted by trumptman
You have no private property (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_wr,0,348748.story?coll=la-home-headlines)



So a big money developer pays the mayor to condemn your house and that is considered progressive?


Who considers that progressive?

This sounds like the worst kind of state theft shit I can think of. Big money winning.

[Fellowship]

I was about to post on this very subject but I see Nick has already done so. This supreme court has failed the American people and given license to wealthy groups / developers to do as they wish. Profit over people, power over people seems to be the direction this once great nation is headed.

Our nation needs leaders of moral and ethical integrity to boot out the mafia we have in power who serve only to empower the greedy.

Fellowship

[Northgate]

Smells more like modern conservative thinking to me. Nothing progressive about it.

Big government making big decisions. Big coporations making big dollars.

The 5-4 ruling -- assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America...

I'm a big believer in privacy. Private property should be exactly that, regardless of the structure on it. I also believe in the privacy to make my own decisions. Privacy for how my family deals with a terminal illness or vegitative state. But that's a different rant for a different thread.

[shetline]

So far there doesn't seem to be anyone here, on the left or the right, who is pleased with the outcome of this decision.

The applicable part of the US Constitution is the phrase in the Fifth Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

Public schools, highways, government buildings, etc. -- those are clearly "public use". I think it's really reaching to claim that private development, just because it generates more tax revenue for the public, turns private use into a kind of public use.

I guess all we can do for now is push for greater protection via state and federal law, or via more-easily-amended state constitutions.

At the moment, the House of Representatives seems to consider it more important to change the US Constitution so that people who burn flags can be thrown in jail for what would otherwise be free expression.

[shetline]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
This will allow developers to buy out pretty much anything if they can leverage enough capital. The corporations win again!
By the "reasoning" of this court, I should be able to go into a town and say "I don't think this factory is being run very well. Give it to me, and I'll turn it around, and generate more tax revenue for the community".

Then all I have to do is give the mayor or town council enough "incentive" to see things my way, and I can seize my competitor's business and make it an extension of my own. And if I don't really generate more tax revenue in the future? Oh, well! Too late for the original owner.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Smells more like modern conservative thinking to me.

Maybe. It certainly favors the patrons of the Republican Party but it is worth noting that the three ultra-conservative justices all voted against this decision as did Sandra Day O'Conner. It was the combination of the four generally more moderate justices along with Kennedy who voted in the majority.

[iPoster]

So what is the balance of power for a Supreme Court gone mad?

First, they selectively read the Constitution to throw out all of the state medicinal marijuana laws by quoting the 'Interstate Commerce Clause' while ignoring the 10th Amendment, which explicitly says that in areas where the Constitution does not give the Federal government authority – like marijuana regulation for example – the power remains with the states. (I'm anti-legalization, but if it's truly useful in certain medical cases, where is the harm in that?)

Now, they side with big business and big government (who's always been in bed with big business, no matter what party is in charge, just to different degrees) giving them the ability to take anyone's property for virtually any reason. If you don't think that will be the result, come back in a couple years and see what's going on in America's cities and towns. It won't be pretty, I guarantee it! Sure, there has always been Eminent Domain, but this ruling expands the definition of it, and prevents the homeowner from any right to hold out for more money than 'fair market value', or even to decide not to sell.

:no: :mad:

[BRussell]

Yeah, the conservatives did good in standing up for the little guy against the big shots. I'd have to side with the conservatives in asserting individual constitutional rights against government favoritism toward the powerful.

But there is an interesting spin here on "activism." The majority opinion in this case was to defer to the legislature on what "public use" really means. The majority argued that, traditionally, it's been up to the legislature to decide what's in the public's interest, as with zoning laws, and the courts wouldn't get involved in that kind of decision. The conservatives would have preferred an "activist" decision in which the courts over-ruled the legislature's development plan and zoning decisions.

[Aurora]

Govt out of control , but what do you expect when they make their own rules and laws while the rob the Tax Payer of everything. They might as well be using a Gun! whats the difference? oh yeah they get together and make up Law so they can then take from you. Government is out of Control. People wake up.

[spindler]

I'll give the conservative judges credit here, but in general seizing other people's property is something conservatives have always favored and love to do and it's something liberals are against.

The way it's usually done is by raising taxes to get lower income people out of a neighborhood that becomes prime property. In that case, conservatives call it the "free market". They say if the lower income people can't pay the rising taxes then they just have to sell.

You have older people on a fixed income or middle class people on a moderate income in Atlanta that own middle class homes. As Atlanta expands and their location becomes prime real estate, their taxes then double and triple over a five year period. Being unable to pay that on a fixed or lower class income, they have to sell their houses they may have owned for the last 40 years.

Of course the excuse for the doublng of taxes is that the area is now more upscale, needs more maintenance etc, and the rising taxes are to make the neighborhood better.

When this happens Republicans just point to the free market and say that the person who has the most money is the one who deserves to live in the prime property and you can't stop progress or development, etc.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by spindler
but in general seizing other people's property is something conservatives have always favored and love to do and it's something liberals are against.

This is quite wrong. Conservatives tend to be very strong private property rights advocates. Liberals are much more of the "public good" mindset.

Admittedly these days there are strange bedfellows...big business now seems to be the primary taker...and conservatives (well Republicans anyway) certainly side with these guys quite a lot. True conservatives wouldn't do this.

Originally posted by spindler
The way it's usually done is by raising taxes to get lower income people out of a neighborhood that becomes prime property.

The taxes you speak of are property taxes...which are 100% local...and a very LARGE % goes to...wait for it...the public schools...of which a very large % of their budgets (80-90% where I am) go for salaries of...wait for it again...teachers (and administrators of course).

[spindler]

"True conservatives wouldn't do this."

Well, true conservatives have some sort of principles. Those conservatives are a vanishing breed.

"The taxes you speak of are property taxes...which are 100% local...and a very LARGE % goes to...wait for it...the public schools...of which a very large % of their budgets (80-90% where I am) go for salaries of...wait for it again...teachers (and administrators of course)."

Well that's the claim. Sure the local schools get a lot better because they have more money. That's because wealthier people move into the neighborhood and pay the higher taxes. You make it out like it's a good thing when they raise taxes on lower middle class people to move them out. Sure the schools get better, but the people who benefit from that are the ones that take over the neighborhood.

[trumptman]

Best summary I have read so far.

Your land is now up for auction by the local government, for sale to the entity willing to generate the most tax revenue.

Sad.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by spindler
You make it out like it's a good thing when they raise taxes on lower middle class people to move them out.

Actually...no...that wasn't my implication at all. Just stating a fact. In fact, I have voted against every single school tax increase that has come up here...and there has been (almost) every year since I have been here (10 years).

I actually object to the notion that throwing more money at the schools makes them better. This has not proven to be true.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by trumptman
Best summary I have read so far.

Your land is now up for auction by the local government, for sale to the entity willing to generate the most tax revenue.

Sad.

Nick Thats is how I read it, Or BIG BUSINESS OWNS & RUNS EVERYTHING EVEN GOVERMENT. Freedom Liberty and Justice are dead concepts in U.S.A. Replaced with spin and Totalitarism.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Aurora
Thats is how I read it, Or BIG BUSINESS OWNS & RUNS EVERYTHING EVEN GOVERMENT. Freedom Liberty and Justice are dead concepts in U.S.A. Replaced with spin and Totalitarism.

But what is even more amazing are the judges who signed off on this.

Nick

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by trumptman
But what is even more amazing are the judges who signed off on this.

Nick

Welcome to America, Inc.

Fellows

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Welcome to America, Inc.

Fellows

No welcome the need for some new court appointees that are more to the right politically.

Take a look at who supported this decision.

Stevens - Ford appointee after Watergate
Breyer - Clinton appointee
Ginsburg - Clinton appointee
Kennedy - Reagan appointee after previous two selections were attacked (including Bork)
Souter - Bush I appointee wishing to avoid confirmation fight

Look who stood against it.

Scalia - Reagan appointee that led to Reagan confirmation fights
O'Conner - Reagan appointee
Thomas - Bush I appointee that led to confirmation fights
Rehnquist - Nixon appointee elevation to Chief Justice also prompted Reagan confirmation fights

What is clear is that Bush needs to get a solid person that doesn't consult international law instead of our Constitution to come up with rulings, (Juvenile death penalty) doesn't declare not for sale, home grown pot to be an interstate trade clause issue (Medicinal marijuana) and also can read the damn fifth amendment without adding in words due to dementia.

That nuclear option doesn't seem so extreme now does it?

Nick

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by trumptman
No welcome the need for some new court appointees that are more to the right politically.

Take a look at who supported this decision.

Stevens - Ford appointee after Watergate
Breyer - Clinton appointee
Ginsburg - Clinton appointee
Kennedy - Reagan appointee after previous two selections were attacked (including Bork)
Souter - Bush I appointee wishing to avoid confirmation fight

Look who stood against it.

Scalia - Reagan appointee that led to Reagan confirmation fights
O'Conner - Reagan appointee
Thomas - Bush I appointee that led to confirmation fights
Rehnquist - Nixon appointee elevation to Chief Justice also prompted Reagan confirmation fights

What is clear is that Bush needs to get a solid person that doesn't consult international law instead of our Constitution to come up with rulings, (Juvenile death penalty) doesn't declare not for sale, home grown pot to be an interstate trade clause issue (Medicinal marijuana) and also can read the damn fifth amendment without adding in words due to dementia.

That nuclear option doesn't seem so extreme now does it?

Nick

The problem here is not international law, rather the problem is the fact that both democrats and republicans are "OWNED" by corporate interests.

Nothing more nothing less.

Fellows

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Fellowship
The problem here is not international law, rather the problem is the fact that both democrats and republicans are "OWNED" by corporate interests.

Nothing more nothing less.

Fellows

Well considering the least owned judges appear to be the most conservative, we obviously need to go in that direction.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Well considering the least owned judges appear to be the most conservative, we obviously need to go in that direction. I want broad constructionist, "activist" judges - in the sense of having a willingness to assert individual rights against legislative decisions. Is that what you want, too? Because those conservatives in this case wanted an activist decision that would have overturned a legislative decision through a broad reading of 5th amendment individual rights.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I want broad constructionist, "activist" judges - in the sense of having a willingness to assert individual rights against legislative decisions. Is that what you want, too? Because those conservatives in this case wanted an activist decision that would have overturned a legislative decision through a broad reading of 5th amendment individual rights.

I don't think this required a broad reading of the fifth amendment. I think the broad reading was the crux of the problem here. Public was changed from actual public works to private developers claiming to act in the public interest. If it were a narrow reading the word public would have been maintained as only public works.

This court has fallen victim to this more and more lately. The medical marijuana law was the best example of this. They read interstate commerce to apply to something that was never bought, sold and was never transported across any state line. To me, that is a very broad reading.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
If it were a narrow reading the word public would have been maintained as only public works.
I'd have to agree with you here. What I wouldn't want to agree to is that I'd always want the Constitution to be read narrowly.

For instance, I'm happier that the First Amendment is (currently) broadly read to include many forms of expressions and new media, beyond the explicitly stated freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

With the justification provided by the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."), I'd prefer to see judges read the Constitution broadly when it comes to individual freedoms, while being very narrow when it comes to exercise of government power.

[Towel]

Originally posted by trumptman
Well considering the least owned judges appear to be the most conservative, we obviously need to go in that direction. You know, I'd love for us to get a true-conservative, libertarian, strict-constructionist type on the Court. But no current justice fits that description. Ironically, for all the flack he gets, Thomas is closest. Scalia has shown himself to be just a partisan hack in conservative robes; no rhyme or reason to his decisions at all, except what's on the Party's agenda. Most importantly, neither one seems to have any spine at all for civil liberties.

So I'm not holding my breath for Bush's choice to be a real conservative.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think this required a broad reading of the fifth amendment. I think the broad reading was the crux of the problem here. Public was changed from actual public works to private developers claiming to act in the public interest. If it were a narrow reading the word public would have been maintained as only public works. OK, I think you and shetline are right on the strict/broad issue. But I think that in general, a strict constructionist approach is going to be bad for individual liberties. Most of what is laid out in the Constitution involves rights of individuals and limitations on the government. If you read those narrowly/strictly, you end up with with the minimal individual rights and limitations on gov't. If you read them broadly, you end up with more individual rights and limitations on the gov't.

That's why I'd prefer an activist broad constructionist in general, even if a specific instance of a broad interpretation of a clause may result in a bad ruling like this.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You definitely do not understand the scope of education inequality in this country.

The context of the discussion had nothing to do with the issue of "education inequality"...it was the suggestion that the conservatives are raising taxes to price poor people out of their home in order to take over.

Originally posted by ShawnJ
And/or you approach the problem from a particularly suburban perspective, where "throwing money" at comparatively rich schools does not make much of a difference in terms of education outcomes.

Yes, that is the base of my experience. And this is at least one place where I get asked (evey year) for more taxes.

Back to the original issue though...it isn't "conservatives" (necessarily) that are raising taxes to price poor people out of their homes. The property taxes primarily go to (local) public schools. Raising taxes for that purpose is what can prices (poor) people out of their homes.

Assuming, of course, that raising property taxes does have such an effect. This actually seems like a somewhat dubious assertion since property taxes (as a percentage of owning/renting a home is a rather small % anyway).

[BRussell]

Well this is the first defense of this decision I've seen, and it's the NY Times' lead editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24fri1.html?oref=login) today.

The Limits of Property Rights

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920, and its unemployment rate was nearly twice the state average - an effort was begun to turn New London around. State and local officials put together a redevelopment plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer research facility, that would bring restaurants, stores and a new Coast Guard museum to one hard-hit neighborhood.

The city authorized a nonprofit development corporation to clear the necessary land by eminent domain, a forced sale in which the seller is given appropriate compensation. The development corporation got control of most of the land it needed, but a few people refused to sell.

Eminent domain allows governments to take property for a public use, such as building a road. The property owners in New London claimed that handing over private property to a private developer cannot be a public use, even if it is part of a comprehensive plan to turn around a depressed city.

The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, sided with the city. The court noted that in past cases it had taken a broad view on this issue, and given governments wide discretion to determine when a taking of property meets this standard. New London, the court held, was within its rights to decide that its development plan was a valid public use. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.

That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
I'd have to agree with you here. What I wouldn't want to agree to is that I'd always want the Constitution to be read narrowly.

For instance, I'm happier that the First Amendment is (currently) broadly read to include many forms of expressions and new media, beyond the explicitly stated freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

With the justification provided by the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."), I'd prefer to see judges read the Constitution broadly when it comes to individual freedoms, while being very narrow when it comes to exercise of government power.

Agreed.

Originally posted by BRussell
OK, I think you and shetline are right on the strict/broad issue. But I think that in general, a strict constructionist approach is going to be bad for individual liberties. Most of what is laid out in the Constitution involves rights of individuals and limitations on the government. If you read those narrowly/strictly, you end up with with the minimal individual rights and limitations on gov't. If you read them broadly, you end up with more individual rights and limitations on the gov't.

That's why I'd prefer an activist broad constructionist in general, even if a specific instance of a broad interpretation of a clause may result in a bad ruling like this.

I think shetline's post hit right on what you might prefer.

Nick

[Moe_in_Texas]

This is your left-wing court for you! Wonder why Americans support the President?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
This is your left-wing court for you! Wonder why Americans support the President?
Yes, I do wonder, with gasping amazement, why Americans support Bush. It's certainly going to take a whole lot more than one questionable court decision, where on a RARE occasion the likes of Renquist, Scalia and Thomas have decided more to my liking, to welcome with open arms more Bush judicial appointments, especially on the Supreme Court.

On the whole, I'm still quite, quite certain I'd be happier with the judicial appointments a Democrat would be making.

[JimDreamworx]

If the Freemen can have their own courts, the govt can be a lackey for private enterprise.

[ColanderOfDeath]

This is your left-wing court for you! Wonder why Americans support the President?

This is hardly a left wing court. Seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans including a majority of the five who voted for this decision (granted that Stevens was GOP appointed but turned out to be left of center). Kennedy is a right winger although obviously not as much so as Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. Souter is a moderate and not a true left winger by any stretch. Obviously some people consider him marginally left of center given the context of the the entire court being weighted towards the right as he's probably the 6th most conservative or 4th most liberal judge but setting aside the court's composition I'd say his views are definitely moderate. Breyer, maybe and Ginsberg and Stevens are lefties although really only leftist in the sense that the Democratic party is leftish which is to say moderate or at most a bit left of center by most Western civ standards and to some extent even by US legal standards.

I also suspect that Kennedy, who was really kind of the swing vote here, based his vote partly on a moderately conservative precept, ie the idea that legislative discretion of an elected body on what is in the public's interest ought to hold sway for an issue like Eminent Domain wherein the constitution clearly implies in Amendment V that private property can be taken for public use as long as the person is provided due process and just compensation. In doing so he is forced to accept some more liberal correlaries, ie the broad based view of Eminent Domain and the govt power that that entails and the narrow notion of property rights which would certainly not be conservative ideas. But the principles of state/local power over federalism in that the US Supreme Court ought not override the local New London City Council as well as the idea that elected legislative bodies know best and that judicial power to override them ought to be limited are both concepts espoused by conservatives.

Americans don't really support the president all that much. His approval ratings are in the tank, he received fewer votes than his opponent in 00 and even in 04 his "mandate" consisted of votes from just 21% of the population and about 30% of those who were eligibile to vote. Hardly a stunning show of support when 70% of those who can do so chose not to endorse him with their vote and who knows how many of those voted for him because he was not named John Kerry.

[Towel]

Originally posted by BRussell
Well this is the first defense of this decision I've seen, and it's the NY Times' lead editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24fri1.html?oref=login) today. I thought that was kinda funny, if predictable:(The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

[rageous]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
...and who knows how many of those voted for him because he was not named John Kerry.

I chose not to quote the rest of your post cause I'm close enough in agreement to it, but this part I thought a little silly. Mostly because there was an equal number, if not larger number, who voted for Kerry because he was not named George Bush. Each candidate has those types of voters, so it's a hollow point to try and make against one person in particular.

[NaplesX]

welcome to the USSA.

A red letter decision for the socialist liberals.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Originally posted by rageous
I chose not to quote the rest of your post cause I'm close enough in agreement to it, but this part I thought a little silly. Mostly because there was an equal number, if not larger number, who voted for Kerry because he was not named George Bush. Each candidate has those types of voters, so it's a hollow point to try and make against one person in particular.

Not silly at all. Maybe you thought the point that I was trying to make was slightly different than what I meant to say in which case your point matters. My intent was not to say "Americans don't support GWB, rather they support Kerry or Democrats or X." Rather my point was just the narrow one that the opposite of what the other poster suggested was true, ie simply that "Americans don't support GWB [on the whole]." I don't think Americans on the whole like or dislike Bush much more than Frist or Hastert or Kerry or Reid or anyone else. If anything I think they like him the best by a little margin I suspect as they tend to like him "personally" while disliking his policies a little more than the average politico.

It is certainly true that many many people voted for George Bush because they also did not want John Kerry in office and I tend to think that this is how the "swing voters" voted. Of course if the question were how much support does Kerry have and then we look at him getting 20% of the popular vote or 29% of the population (guessing on % off the top of my head) I would certainly suggest that the actual % of people who support him are much smaller just as they are for Bush. Even smaller as Bush at least energizes the conservative Christians and the Rah Rah USA types whereas Kerry did not do much even for Dems or lefties.

It's not a hollow point at all to make it just against George Bush. I guess to make it just against Bush and not someone else if we were comparing politicos or the election wree the primary topic then yeah that would be a bit deceiving. But my point was in response to a narrow comment just about people supporting Bush. In this thread no one raised the issue of how many people support Senator Kerry, only the claim that Americans support Bush was made. Also, Bush is obviously the most powerful politico right now [regardless of who is really pulling the strings, he is the frontman] and his popularity matters at least until 11/08. The number of people who support Kerry is neither here nor there given that he lost the election and he has pretty limited powers as a minority party Senator. The same point could be made about Kerry but it wasnt raised in the thread and it doesn't really matter since Kerry doesn't matter on the national political scene currently and going forward. Of course I could have ignored the comment but that's not what Political Outsider is about. And it was paired with the comment on this being a left wing court and thus showing why people support Bush which was just too much to pass up.

I tend to guess that 1/4 of the country's eligible voters don't give a shit about politics or current events [aside from Survivor and American Idol], 1/4 care about issues which are political but think that every single politician is pretty much a scumbag whore, and then there are two groups of 10% that are more afraid or hateful of the other party then supportive of their party and then their is the 15% of conservative Christians who mostly support Bush and then two groups of 10% who are just part of the Team D or Team R for certain reasons and then the 5% of swing voters that waffle and decide national elections. Very general % obviously since I just spent 15 second profiling 300 million people in fifteen seconds with made up numbers. ;)

[hardhead]

welcome to the USSA. A red letter decision for the socialist liberals. NaplesX, come on man. Are you kidding?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardhead
NaplesX, come on man. Are you kidding? No, it's not an idea born from conservative views.

[audiopollution]

Fuck you, Justice David H. Souter:

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Read the rest of the press release, here (http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html).

Funny as hell.

[Harald]

Originally posted by NaplesX
welcome to the USSA.

A red letter decision for the socialist liberals.

No, that would be giving it to the state or the people so that they can benefit.

Taking something from someone and giving it to someone else for their financial benefit is most certainly one of the bedrocks of aggressive capitalism. It's what the USA is founded on.

[SDW2001]

I was going to start this topic as well. It defintiely seems that the entire ideological spectrum is fuming about this. The local government here recently tried to seize a farm to build a golf course....outside City limits. The courts upheld it, but with enough public pressure (the final wave of which brought by yours truly and his 1,500 member tax watch group), they dropped the eminent domain pursuit.

Here is a great link. It's more than a long shot, but enough signatures might get someone's attention.

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Harald
No, that would be giving it to the state or the people so that they can benefit.

Taking something from someone and giving it to someone else for their financial benefit is most certainly one of the bedrocks of aggressive capitalism. It's what the USA is founded on. Obviously a product of modern education.

Capitalism - n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

Socialism - n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital.

By definition one of us is correct, while the other is not.

If the state (read the courts) can decide to take your property and give it to another, that leans sharply toward socialism.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
If the state (read the courts) can decide to take your property and give it to another, that leans sharply toward socialism.
When the "another" your property is given to is a private developer? That's not socialism. The state is assuming authority to transfer private ownership of the property, but the state isn't itself assuming ownership of the property.

If you're going to pedantically quote dictionary definitions, pay a little attention to those definitions yourself.

Of course, this abuse of eminent domain doesn't make for very good free-market capitalism either. The closet term I can think of for what's going on here is crony capitalism -- something which is much nearer and dearer to the hearts of many of today's wealthy Republicans than it is for Socialists.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Obviously a product of modern education.

If the state (read the courts) can decide to take your property and give it to another, that leans sharply toward socialism.

Obviously you don't understand the socialist economics: the state takes the property from everybody and gives it to nobody. It may let everyone use the property just temporarily, hence socialism, but no one guy owns the place. The property is the property of the state and period.

It contradicts sharply with the state seizing the land and giving it to another person just because he can make more revenue through taxes.

In socialism, the government makes money through the industrial giants and the common work of comrades, not through the taxes they pay.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I was going to start this topic as well. It defintiely seems that the entire ideological spectrum is fuming about this. The local government here recently tried to seize a farm to build a golf course....outside City limits. The courts upheld it, but with enough public pressure (the final wave of which brought by yours truly and his 1,500 member tax watch group), they dropped the eminent domain pursuit.

Here is a great link. It's more than a long shot, but enough signatures might get someone's attention.

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html Thanks, i signed the thing as well. Its clearly not our forfathers intent to have land taken for Malls,Golf or other desires of the Corporations and Filthy rich. The Supreme Court instead of upholding the Constitution made a Political Spin. Did the same darn thing on 10 Commandments. Everyone should sign!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Harald
No, that would be giving it to the state or the people so that they can benefit. What's funny is that a socialist taking of property for the state very clearly is constitutional. It's only the taking for private development that was at issue here.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Obviously a product of modern education.

Capitalism - n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

Socialism - n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital.

By definition one of us is correct, while the other is not.

If the state (read the courts) can decide to take your property and give it to another, that leans sharply toward socialism.
State takes private property and gives it to someone with more money, capitalism.

State takes private property and keeps it for the state ('other citizens'), socialism.

OK?

Naples can't believe he actually sympathises with a socialistic principle. So he just pretends the definition's wrong. :) Love it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
State takes private property and gives it to someone with more money, capitalism.

State takes private property and keeps it for the state ('other citizens'), socialism.

OK?

Naples can't believe he actually sympathises with a socialistic principle. So he just pretends the definition's wrong. :) Love it. I don't believe whatever bile you're spewing.

This is a typical redistribution of wealth - ownership means that you decide what you do property. This ruling gives the state the final say and thus ownership. This ruling undermines all semblance of ownership in this country.

Capitalism is based on ownership and free trade, not government redistribution of wealth.

[FormerLurker]

:lol: at Naples' attempt to define socialism.

Socialism is when the government takes property away from wealthy individuals, to benefit less wealthy individuals.

When the government takes property from individuals to benefit corporations, it's not called "socialism."

It's called "fascism."

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't believe whatever bile you're spewing.

This is a typical redistribution of wealth - ownership means that you decide what you do property. This ruling gives the state the final say and thus ownership. This ruling undermines all semblance of ownership in this country.

Capitalism is based on ownership and free trade, not government redistribution of wealth.
WTF?
Dude. My parents were communists and I know a thing or two about communism and... oh lord, where do you begin?

Look. The seizure of this land benefits PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. Not the the state.

These private individuals benefit financially; indeed, if they weren't rich to begin with they would not have been able to get the land in the first place.

Redistribution of wealth does not mean the rich get stuff that used to belong the poor. It's supposed to produce an equality of riches, not to concentrate riches in the hands of a few who are already rich, which how capitalism works.

Christ Jesus, man, give up.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Socialism is when the government takes property away from wealthy individuals, to benefit less wealthy individuals.

But does it ever actually work out that way FL?

Most of the time, the privileged classes at the top find a way to use this power to further enrich themselves. In other words, the Animal Farm principle.

I find it funny that this ruling is a rare case where the Liberals and Conservatives in PO agree in principle, but we can't bring ourselves to admit it outright.

Which is why we've shifted to discussing the origins and definitions of various economic systems. :D

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Frank777
Which is why we've shifted to discussing the origins and definitions of various economic systems. :D

Let's spell it out the quick and dirty way then:

Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you part of the milk.

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and sells you the milk.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

;)

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

In any case, EVERYONE here seems to be in agreement that (in USA) this should NOT have been allowed to happen!

Considering the Supreme Court is appointed, rather than elected, this smells a bit like "Taxation without representation".

THAT sort of thing caused a bit of a fuss on this continent a couple hundred years ago...

[sammi jo]

Best of luck!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/29/souter.property.ap/index.html

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

More like this.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you part of the milk.

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and sells you the milk.

Capitalism: You have two cows. Your neighbour has one cow. You undercut the price of your neighbour's milk to put him out of business, then buy his cow for a pittance. Jobless, he starts to work for you for practically nothing while you consider your cow-buying options further afield. You build a swimming pool. Everyone else can sleep in the cattle shed. There's straw in there. You go to a cow conference in Brazil with the wife. Lovely. Let's go and play golf.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Best of luck!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/29/souter.property.ap/index.html

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Someone's not reading the entire thread. ;)

[New]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
More like this.

Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you part of the milk.

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and sells you the milk.

Capitalism: You have two cows. Your neighbour has one cow. You undercut the price of your neighbour's milk to put him out of business, then buy his cow for a pittance. Jobless, he starts to work for you for practically nothing while you consider your cow-buying options further afield. You build a swimming pool. Everyone else can sleep in the cattle shed. There's straw in there. You go to a cow conference in Brazil with the wife. Lovely. Let's go and play golf

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by shetline
When the "another" your property is given to is a private developer? That's not socialism. The state is assuming authority to transfer private ownership of the property, but the state isn't itself assuming ownership of the property.

If you're going to pedantically quote dictionary definitions, pay a little attention to those definitions yourself.

Of course, this abuse of eminent domain doesn't make for very good free-market capitalism either. The closet term I can think of for what's going on here is crony capitalism -- something which is much nearer and dearer to the hearts of many of today's wealthy Republicans than it is for Socialists.

Thanks shetline for making it perfectly clear. I fail to see how Naples is confused by what you post above.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, it's not an idea born from conservative views.

Actually you are correct. I realized in recent history that those in power who have the R next to their name are not conservative. They once may have been but these days they only serve to service the needs of their rich clients. You see both the democrats and republicans are bought with cold hard $$$. It is what you and I could call "the reality of things" in Washington D.C.

You are correct to suggest that such property seizures are not born from conservative views. Where you go wrong is when you assume that those in power are indeed "conservative" as opposed to being bought and paid for by "big wealth".

shetline was correct when he suggested this whole thing is a result of what we might call crony capitalism.

Those in power do not hold to "conservative" principles rather to a platform of aggression in the middle east, erosion of civil liberties, spending tax payer money as if there is no tomorrow, failing to provide universal health care.

When it comes to conservative vs./ socialized not all social / subsidized ventures are all bad:

We pay taxes for roads and bridges and share the roads and bridges. Just imagine if every road was privately owned and you had to pay each owner a toll.

To be clear the subject at hand in this thread is neither about conservative vs./ socialism. The issue here is the abuse of power and crony capitialism superceeding "we the people".

Fellowship

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
To be clear the subject at hand in this thread is neither about conservative vs./ socialism. The issue here is the abuse of power and crony capitialism superceeding "we the people". I see this fitting into the liberal mindset that the constitution is a "living" document - that changes as people become more progressive. The supremes and the circuit courts of appeals have been doing this for decades now.

This decision undermines many clauses in the constitution and the bill of rights, that we are now in this country on the verge of becoming a socialist/fascist system ruled by the supreme court alone.

The supreme court has stepped over the line just like they have been doing for a long time.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I see this fitting into the liberal mindset ...

Naples I respect your political views and beliefs yet I give up on the matter regarding your concern that this action by the court is a reflection of a "liberal" minded paradigm. I would suggest to you that wealthy individuals and corporations are the ones pulling the strings in this country with their "influence". Those of us average men and women are set aside as the interests of the powerful manifest as enabled and facilitated with help via our law makers.

A liberal mindset has nothing to do with this subject at hand.

The powerful powers that be becoming more powerful at the expense of the weaker amoung us is the story here.

Again "we the people" are being cast aside for matters of commerce.



The wise use money and love people...
The greedy love money and use people...

Keep in mind "the greedy" or "rich and powerful" run this country and cast aside "we the people"

Fellows

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
When the "another" your property is given to is a private developer? That's not socialism. The state is assuming authority to transfer private ownership of the property, but the state isn't itself assuming ownership of the property.

If you're going to pedantically quote dictionary definitions, pay a little attention to those definitions yourself.

Of course, this abuse of eminent domain doesn't make for very good free-market capitalism either. The closet term I can think of for what's going on here is crony capitalism -- something which is much nearer and dearer to the hearts of many of today's wealthy Republicans than it is for Socialists.

I have to disagree with you. Socialism doesn't fully mean that the state has to own the means of production or the property. In a pure form it simply means that the collective controls the power. In a more practicle sense it means that government directs the kind and nature of production. They don't have to own it.

In that mindset, Kelo is absolutely Socialist. Just because some of the collective happen to benefit from the ownership change doesn't matter because the entire collective has decided this benefit betters all. It might make someone rich but the government has decided that is okay since we are allowed to progressively tax the hell out of that rich person.

You see this in plenty of other instances that would be called socialized. If we adopted a single payer government financed universal health care, the government would not have to personally pay each doctor or own every hospital. However it would direct and control heath care services and production and that would mean it is socialized.

Kelo basically states that your property is only yours as long as the collective, via the government, determines it benefits society via enough tax dollars. You get the guise of private property ownership, but if you refuse the recognize that the government wants a certain number of tax dollars from that property, they may take it from you and give it to someone who will give them that number of tax dollars. They are absolutely directing and controlling the means of real estate production in that instance.

Nick

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Fellows I agree that what you're saying is true in a sense as it applies to the particular case that resulted in this decision. However the decision itself will have wide and lasting effect, well beyond the little town where the battle started.

As of this decision, property ownership has taken on a new meaning. Every home owner is now at the mercy of potentially corrupt local governments, unscrupulous large businesses, and more insidiously the courts - the increasingly liberal courts.

"greedy" and "rich and powerful" are not solely owned subsidiaries of the republican party, like you seem to be implying. The dems have plenty of those in their ranks. Let's not fool ourselves.

This is definitely redistribution of wealth. In this country wealth is closely tied to land ownership and equity. Many people hold on to land to acquire wealth to pass on to their kids, for future investment, or for retirement. When a government can take land because it thinks that another person or corporation can manage the land better than the owner, they're not only taking that land but future income made from the value of that land.

This ruling is going to cause all kinds of ill side effects. It is going to require new laws about how to determine who is managing their land properly and wether someone can generate more income from it, and so on, and so on...

More government say in personal affairs is a step in the socialism/liberalism direction IMO.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Actually you are correct. I realized in recent history that those in power who have the R next to their name are not conservative. They once may have been but these days they only serve to service the needs of their rich clients. You see both the democrats and republicans are bought with cold hard $$$. It is what you and I could call "the reality of things" in Washington D.C.

You are correct to suggest that such property seizures are not born from conservative views. Where you go wrong is when you assume that those in power are indeed "conservative" as opposed to being bought and paid for by "big wealth".

shetline was correct when he suggested this whole thing is a result of what we might call crony capitalism.

I suggest that it is the crony capitalists who are ultimately deluded. These judges believe you only own something if the public benefits from it to a certain degree. If the promised beach resort does not generate enough tax dollars for the local government, the government can steal it back and give it to someone else. They can even force the person to keep it and demand restrictions that devalue the property to a large degree. This has happened quite a bit in California with Malibu Beach and I assure you those folks have plenty of money. If the government wants to let you buy your beach house, let you pay massive property taxes on it, and then take back the beach from the house, they will do so no matter how rich you happen to be. They literally can fight you with your own dollars.

Those in power do not hold to "conservative" principles rather to a platform of aggression in the middle east, erosion of civil liberties, spending tax payer money as if there is no tomorrow, failing to provide universal health care.

I didn't know that the judges who ruled on Kelo supported all these things. Perhaps you can elaborate.:\

When it comes to conservative vs./ socialized not all social / subsidized ventures are all bad:

We pay taxes for roads and bridges and share the roads and bridges. Just imagine if every road was privately owned and you had to pay each owner a toll.

Agreed

To be clear the subject at hand in this thread is neither about conservative vs./ socialism. The issue here is the abuse of power and crony capitialism superceeding "we the people".

Fellowship

I think what you fail to realize, and many on the left fail to realize this, is that loss of freedom is loss of freedom no matter what the ideology. I've watched many on the left advocate loss of certain freedoms because they will go to a collective good cause. When you advocate for confiscatory taxation and redistribution, the people in power don't have to follow your plan. When you have 25% of everyone's money, it might be used to help the elderly, feed the poor, fight a war, fund stem cell research, execute murderers and build prisons, etc.

This is why I become more libertarian by the day. The problem isn't who controls the big monolithic structure that has everyone's money and power, it is that there is a big monolithic structure.

Kelo states that even your private property isn't safe from being confiscated and used toward whatever means the collective determines. We aren't talking about the collective benefit, like a road. We are talking about determines which means who has the power. Again it appears that progressive elements have promoted this loss of freedom as a means helping the collective via tax dollars. However most are still outraged, much like yourself, because they are wising up and realizing that the loss doesn't mean the person in power will do as they desire. Once the freedom is lost, it is gone. The person controlling the power of the collective and acting in their interest may or may not have the right interests at heart however it will not be possible to stop because the freedom is gone.

The trading of freedom for safety must stop. This is an issue Bush has traded with 9/11 at times. However it is also an issue Democrats trade in with race, gender, age and class. Does it really matter if the person is claiming to keep us safe from terrorists vs. racists, the rich, age and death or white men? If you give up your freedom and power, it is gone. Hopefully Kelo will make people realize that while there are certain things we can benefit in doing collectively, the government should be limited, we should manage our own fears and boogiemen and keep the most freedom for ourselves instead of giving it away to someone who will do as they want with it.

Nick

[Gon]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
State takes private property and gives it to someone with more money, capitalism.

State takes private property and keeps it for the state ('other citizens'), socialism.

OK?

Naples can't believe he actually sympathises with a socialistic principle. So he just pretends the definition's wrong. :) Love it. Actually, us liberals (libertarian, for those of you in the US) will call both of those actions by a much simpler word: theft.

Allow me to quote from wikipedia under "Capitalism":
"Capitalism contrasts with socialism where the means of production are owned by the state or by the community in collective, contrasts with feudalism where land may be privately operated but is owned by the state and held in fee, and contrasts with fascism where statist control over the means of production is exercised while maintaining a facade of de jure private ownership."

You pay property taxes - fees - for "your" property. Now if the state can, in addition to that, take "your" property from you... then it's not your property at all, it's theirs, and the system fits the characteristics of feudalism. If the state gives it to another private individual or entity, and by that maintain a facade of private ownership... that's fascism.

Capitalism means recognition and protection of private property, and uninhibited free trade. It results in the success of productive people, which is of course a good thing. Only an envy-fueled misanthrope would say success of some people is bad in itself. In capitalism, it doesn't happen to the detriment of others, since every trade must be free = voluntary. In the long run, everyone benefits from higher buying power and higher standard of living as accumulated capital lowers the cost of production, no matter if you personally have capital or not.

If you treat the combined productivity of people as a cake to be shared at will, you are in for a huge surprise next day when the 20% of people who actually baked the cake decide to leave the table. The people in North Korea, incredibly, saw this 50 years ago and have yet to acknowledge the elephant in their living room. Or hole in the ground, whichever they happen to live in.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gon
Actually, us liberals (libertarian, for those of you in the US) will call both of those actions by a much simpler word: theft. But I think the point that's being made is that the US Constitution very explicitly allows that "theft." It's in the Fifth Amendment: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The whole debate here is over whether "public use" has to mean government property or whether it can mean privately-owned.

The irony is that to take a consistent (and Constitutional) position on this is to say that you think it's OK for your property to be taken over and owned by the government, but that you don't think it's OK for your property to be taken over and developed by the free market.

[trumptman]

I had not read this quip within the dissention by Thomas. It is very to the point and should make people think about how seriously bad this decision happens to be.

"Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not."

Clarence Thomas

The government shouldn't be concerned with what you do in your bedroom. However shouldn't you be more concerned about the fact that they don't think you can keep your bedroom?

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
I think what you fail to realize, and many on the left fail to realize this, is that loss of freedom is loss of freedom no matter what the ideology. I've watched many on the left advocate loss of certain freedoms because they will go to a collective good cause.
All ideologies save anarchism involve some trade-off of freedom for safety and collective good. Nearly all of us see the wisdom, for example, of giving up the "freedom" to kill anyone who annoys us at any given time, because we don't wish ourselves or our loved one's to be the target of such incredibly free action.

So, while I agree that one has to be very careful about giving up any freedoms, you can't completely avoid engaging in the game of trading freedoms for safety and the collective good. What you need are carefully crafted guiding principles for making these trade-offs and for limiting the ability of those we put in power to abuse that power.
When you advocate for confiscatory taxation and redistribution, the people in power don't have to follow your plan. When you have 25% of everyone's money, it might be used to help the elderly, feed the poor, fight a war, fund stem cell research, execute murderers and build prisons, etc.
If one's government is properly responsive to the will of the people (not like ours, excessively influenced by monied interests) the use of public funds (something always destined to be an imperfect compromise with a certain amount of waste) is not an unalloyed evil which can only be lessened by shrinking the available funds. There is certainly evil to be found in those funds being too small as well.
This is why I become more libertarian by the day. The problem isn't who controls the big monolithic structure that has everyone's money and power, it is that there is a big monolithic structure.
But would libertarianism truly always block the formation of such monoliths, or might it not open the way for concentrated economic powers to become such monoliths?

It seem to me that many libertarians and economic conservatives put way to much stock into equating possession of wealth and economic power with merit and rightful wielding of that power.

There's a big difference between believing in progressive taxation, for instance, and going along with the kind of thing that the Kelo decision supports -- regardless of how much you'd like to condemn the two things together as extensions of the same straw-man caricature of progressivism you're bravely knocking down.
Kelo states that even your private property isn't safe from being confiscated and used toward whatever means the collective determines. We aren't talking about the collective benefit, like a road. We are talking about determines which means who has the power. Again it appears that progressive elements have promoted this loss of freedom as a means helping the collective via tax dollars.
It doesn't seem that too many people here who might characterize themselves as "progressive", myself included, agree with the Kelo decision at all.
However most are still outraged, much like yourself, because they are wising up and realizing that the loss doesn't mean the person in power will do as they desire.
Any system of government requires turning some power over to someone else. Try though you may to come up with a good system of checks and balances, some abuse and/or poor performance will happen.

Turning over less power, however, doesn't automatically mean less abuse will occur. If a government has little power it might not be responsible for much of the abuse that goes on in a society, but it might also be too weak to prevent private abuses of power. Let's not pretend that the problem is as simple as avoiding as much government power possible.
Hopefully Kelo will make people realize that while there are certain things we can benefit in doing collectively, the government should be limited, we should manage our own fears and boogiemen and keep the most freedom for ourselves instead of giving it away to someone who will do as they want with it.
I can agree with this in broad principle without accepting the gratuitously implied conclusion that libertarianism represents the ideal balance of the distribution of power and wealth.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
All ideologies save anarchism involve some trade-off of freedom for safety and collective good. Nearly all of us see the wisdom, for example, of giving up the "freedom" to kill anyone who annoys us at any given time, because we don't wish ourselves or our loved one's to be the target of such incredibly free action.

Yes anything to an extreme is bad. Sky is blue, film at 11.

So, while I agree that one has to be very careful about giving up any freedoms, you can't completely avoid engaging in the game of trading freedoms for safety and the collective good. What you need are carefully crafted guiding principles for making these trade-offs and for limiting the ability of those we put in power to abuse that power

Understood and I noted that most politicians are trading in fear to create answers to that fear instead of dealing in the collective good. Infrastructure is the collective good for example. Billions spent trying to social engineer, not so good.

If one's government is properly responsive to the will of the people (not like ours, excessively influenced by monied interests) the use of public funds (something always destined to be an imperfect compromise with a certain amount of waste) is not an unalloyed evil which can only be lessened by shrinking the available funds. There is certainly evil to be found in those funds being too small as well.

I radically disagree. Most people cannot even imagine the degree of money our government controls. Take the entire Forbes 400, companies that have taken decades to establish liquidate them and you have less than than half the federal spending for one year.(and we aren't even talking about things that are off the books) Monied interests are going to seek the biggest pie. Our government has grown so large that it is the biggest and easiest piece of pie to seek.

Think about this, as rich as Bill Gates is, if we liquidated every thing he has, and didn't make him pay a cent of taxes or transaction charges on it, he couldn't fund our federal government for even a week with his entire net-worth.

That says something pretty radical about how much our federal government spends. We are talking about his entire net-worth, not just his salary or anything else. We are talking about anything he even controls like a large percentage of Microsoft.

But would libertarianism truly always block the formation of such monoliths, or might it not open the way for concentrated economic powers to become such monoliths?

I don't claim to be a registered libertarian or to speak for that party. I just state that I am leaning toward the view of that party more and more because it is clear that power corrupts no matter who has it and their intentions. Sure the rich may become lazy and even abuse some of their power. But the size bat they swing is small compared to the government and most of all they have to earn the money to be corrupt with instead of just taking it from others. Microsoft might be a monolith and even be corrupt. But someone has to buy their products to insure this trend. The government can just keep taxing and doing as they please and again the size and scope have no comparison.

It seem to me that many libertarians and economic conservatives put way to much stock into equating possession of wealth and economic power with merit and rightful wielding of that power.

Often to gain economic power you have to at a minimum do something right. Also as I mentioned earlier most wealth isn't liquid while what the government spends is indeed liquid. If Microsoft wants to be evil for example, they have to do so in a manner that doesn't cause a loss of public confidence or a fall in their stock price which is what creates their wealth. If they don't think of that their power and wealth can shrink dramatically. (Already has as evidenced by the fact that ol'Bill was worth over 100 billion at one time and is about 45 billion right now.)

The government just spends, prints more money and bonds and spends some more. If a company funded their pension the way the government deals with Social Security surpluses, everyone on the board would be in jail. In fact if any corporation kept their books the way the government does, their board would be in jail.

There's a big difference between believing in progressive taxation, for instance, and going along with the kind of thing that the Kelo decision supports -- regardless of how much you'd like to condemn the two things together as extensions of the same straw-man caricature of progressivism you're bravely knocking down.

It isn't about "beliving" in progressive taxation. It is how the actions actually occur when the government is gaining power by using our fears. Social Security is the most regressive tax we have and plays upon our greatest fears, aging and death for example.

It doesn't seem that too many people here who might characterize themselves as "progressive", myself included, agree with the Kelo decision at all.

Don't you see though, that is the point. The progressive and a moderate member of the court are the folks who put this decision through. Yet the people who stood against it are declared extreme by large segments of the Democratic party. Clarence Thomas and Scalia are considered extreme because they think private property cannot be taken for public interest. (versus public use) Kennedy and Souter are considered the "moderate" Republicans that Presidents Reagan and Bush put up when being forced into contentious confirmation hearings by the Democratically controlled Senate. These are the same type of judges the Democrats will declare they want Bush-41 to put forward to avoid a filibuster with the next opening.

What does it really say when the court progressives and moderate declare that private property is really public property that can be assigned to whoever will generate the most tax revenue with it, and the court is considered "Right wing" while this is happening. What happens if you go more to the left from this view?

Any system of government requires turning some power over to someone else. Try though you may to come up with a good system of checks and balances, some abuse and/or poor performance will happen.

Ok.

Turning over less power, however, doesn't automatically mean less abuse will occur. If a government has little power it might not be responsible for much of the abuse that goes on in a society, but it might also be too weak to prevent private abuses of power. Let's not pretend that the problem is as simple as avoiding as much government power possible.

I disagree if for no other point than the scale of the abuse. No corporation, no matter how powerful has the range of the federal government. Also the federal government doesn't just create abuse, it creates a vacuum because no one else will now have money or at times even the means to fund an alternative. Could voucher schools be better than public schools? We don't know because everyone is paying so much in property tax to fund them, that it has created a funding vacuum where you don't have the money to create an alternative. In business we call this type of power monopoly abuse, and actually attempt to stop it. No one ever attempts to stop the government though.

I can agree with this in broad principle without accepting the gratuitously implied conclusion that libertarianism represents the ideal balance of the distribution of power and wealth.

Well that's fine because I'm not even a libertarian yet myself.:lol:

Nick

[Gon]

Originally posted by shetline
If one's government is properly responsive to the will of the people (not like ours, excessively influenced by monied interests) the use of public funds (something always destined to be an imperfect compromise with a certain amount of waste) is not an unalloyed evil which can only be lessened by shrinking the available funds. There is certainly evil to be found in those funds being too small as well.When has there been a problem because taxes were too small, in practice?But would libertarianism truly always block the formation of such monoliths, or might it not open the way for concentrated economic powers to become such monoliths?As long as an economic power grows only by voluntary trade, why would it be bad?It seem to me that many libertarians and economic conservatives put way to much stock into equating possession of wealth and economic power with merit and rightful wielding of that power.This sounds awfully confused. Since when do you need "merit" to do what you want with your property? I don't believe you have a right to use your stuff because you have a lot of it, or because you have merit. I simply believe you have a right to use your stuff because it's yours.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that there should be no right to property, then you need to offer an alternative.Turning over less power, however, doesn't automatically mean less abuse will occur. If a government has little power it might not be responsible for much of the abuse that goes on in a society, but it might also be too weak to prevent private abuses of power. Let's not pretend that the problem is as simple as avoiding as much government power possible.As long as police, defensive military and the court system remain, I find it obvious that there will be less abuse with less government power. Smaller government is not as lucrative to lobby, so there will be less bad influence on it in the first place. If military is limited enough in power, offensive wars become impossible. And finally, it's obvious that as you limit the maximum power the state can wield, you limit what it can do in the worst case.I can agree with this in broad principle without accepting the gratuitously implied conclusion that libertarianism represents the ideal balance of the distribution of power and wealth. A libertarian has the free market which is an allocation/distribution based on the preferences of all people that operate within that economy. There's no proof that it is optimal, sure... but we know theoretically it works pretty well, we see in practice it works pretty well, and we don't know of a system that would work any better.

In general a libertarian doesn't want to "distribute" anything. Just that people don't step on each others' toes. That rule is only hard to stick with if you live by stealing.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by spindler
[B]I'll give the conservative judges credit here, but in general seizing other people's property is something conservatives have always favored and love to do and it's something liberals are against.

Reason magazine and the Cato Institute are the most vocal opposition to emenent domain laws. I think that you are way off base here.

This is a liberal thing. Liberals love social engineering, and this is a great tool for that. Conservatives want to be left alone, don't want the government taking their land, want to be able to do as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Also, these laws affect rich people more than poor people. It is much easier to take a huge single chunk of land that 100 small chunks of land. The primary target here is large land owners.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by e1618978
Reason magazine and the Cato Institute are the most vocal opposition to emenent domain laws. I think that you are way off base here.

This is a liberal thing. Liberals love social engineering, and this is a great tool for that. Conservatives want to be left alone, don't want the government taking their land, want to be able to do as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Also, these laws affect rich people more than poor people. It is much easier to take a huge single chunk of land that 100 small chunks of land. The primary target here is large land owners. Tell that to the folks up north who are loosing their homes for a freaking Mall. Govt has ruled for Govt anyone expect different? This is Big Brother coming at you with campaign contributions from big business. The Supreme court is a Political body folks dont listen to the spin. All you got to do is look at a Ballot. Hello

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Also, these laws affect rich people more than poor people. It is much easier to take a huge single chunk of land that 100 small chunks of land. The primary target here is large land owners. My understanding is that these laws have almost always been used in urban blight cases, where a section of town is run down and they want to just start over. One of the reasons this Kelo case was different was that it involved middle class people rather than just po folks.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
My understanding is that these laws have almost always been used in urban blight cases, where a section of town is run down and they want to just start over. One of the reasons this Kelo case was different was that it involved middle class people rather than just po folks.

If you count things per acre - farmland used for expanding towns and for highways is by far the most. Look at any expanding town, and look at the farms on the edge of that town.

Of course, in most of these cases, you get (sometimes via lawsuit) a fair price for your land, but you are still not free to stay. Even po' folk band together and lawyers are happy to oblige to get a fair price.

[Towel]

Originally posted by e1618978
Of course, in most of these cases, you get (sometimes via lawsuit) a fair price for your land, but you are still not free to stay. Isn't 99.99% of farmland inhabited by...plants?

I realize roads through rural areas must have meant a lot of land gobbled up, so Im sure you're right about acreage. But I can't believe it resulted in very many homes or residences being bulldozed, or hardly anyone being kicked off their land entirely.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Towel
Isn't 99.99% of farmland inhabited by...plants?

I realize roads through rural areas must have meant a lot of land gobbled up, so Im sure you're right about acreage. But I can't believe it resulted in very many homes or residences being bulldozed, or hardly anyone being kicked off their land entirely.

Those plants are the livelihood of the farmers there. Some families have lived there for 10 generations and have their family systems totally uprooted.

The extended family system that builds up over that time now has no common bond, and the families gradually lose touch with each other, isolating into their single family units.

The people that work on the farms lose their jobs, and all of the surrounding infrastructure that used to serve farms now goes out of business and is replaced by Sub-way and nail salons.

[BRussell]

Do you have any links on that, e16? I didn't look very hard, but found this (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/26/eminent_injustice_in_new_london/):

In a separate dissent, Thomas made the same point: ''These losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities . . . the least politically powerful." Fifty years of eminent domain statistics drive home the fact that families uprooted by eminent domain tend to be nonwhite and/or nonwealthy. No wonder urban renewal came to be known bitterly as ''Negro removal."

And that's what I've generally heard about this.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
Do you have any links on that, e16? I didn't look very hard, but found this (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/26/eminent_injustice_in_new_london/):



And that's what I've generally heard about this.

What I am talking about is not urban renewal, which would be as you said. I am talking about suburban expansion, which would use the same laws for different purposes.

I am recovering from surgury right now, but if this thread is still going in a couple of days I will try to back my idea/opinion up with facts.

I looked at your link, and the things there that say it will affect mainly poor people look like opinions as well. I think that the key here is that it affects everyone, no matter how rich or poor you are, and it is a significantly bad effect. I don't think that the "the rich are stepping on the poor again" comments are helpful or accurate.

This is not rich vs poor. This is city hall and developers (who are often rich, but not all rich people are developers) against anyone who they can kick out for a buck - and the people on the butt end of that kick are both rich and poor.

In fact, it is not even fair to paint all developers in a bad light - most buy property from willing sellers. It is only the worst, most evil and ruthless developers (Donald Trump, for example) that do this. City Hall is so eager for tax revenue that they are willing to ruin your life to get it.

And the Libertarian party (along with the Cato institute and Reason magazine) is the only party that will help fight this trend. Vote libertarian - take the test www.lp.org.

The Democrats will not help you with this - this is not something that the Republicans are doing to the blue states.