About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 2:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not to mention Jon if we were to pay 3X what a property was worth the bureaucrats in charge would have their own property seized just to get 3x what its worth.

 






Post 41

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

And I would be buying properties along highways that obviously need widening.

So what?



Post 42

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Which you would never sell because the Highway would be re-routed to some politicians near worthless land so he can sell it for the 3X what its worth. All under guise of “public interest” at the expense of individual taxpayers, oh and by the way, it just added 10min to you commute. Come on Jon, suck it up and admit you had a horrible idea that would be disastrous in practice.




Post 43

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Greg,

I wasn’t clear. When I see where bureaucrats are buying “near worthless land”, it is *there* that I will buy. I won’t miss out. Even if I’m tricked and the highway goes somewhere else, I couldn’t pay all that much for near-worthless properties, right?

Seriously, I just don’t see the need for all the melodrama (I don’t mean you) on this issue. Property is a tool. For example, I need a car to get places. My car is not part of me, but just a tool. If it is “taken” from me at 3X value, I will buy another and be more than whole. Crying about how much I loved that car, how it was my lifeline, my vision, and my sacred car—seems to me like too much emotion. Do I think this should happen often? No. Do I have a lot of sympathy for the inconvenience someone will go through now and then of being given three cars for their one? No.

For the record, I do not support the Kelo taking. I support takings where there is actually, objectively, no other way to make improvements. For example: An interstate corridor through a congested metro area. There is no other place to do it—the existing corridor must be widened. And I don’t think it matters if this were a government road or a privately operated one. We could get the gov’t out of the road business and private developers would still be faced with this.

And when I asked, “Now what?” earlier, I don’t mean: Now what? for the sad developer who bought all those properties and is now faced with one holdout. I mean: Now what? for a city that will not have a 21st century transportation system thanks to one holdout.

Jon



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Now what? for a city that will not have a 21st century transportation system thanks to one holdout."

You mean 20th. The development of more advanced transportation such as practical personal aircraft has undoubtedly been hindered by competing with ground transport infrastructure that is artificially subsidized by coercively taken land and tax dollars.

Using eminent domain and taxes to build highways helps innovation in transportation no more than tax-funded candles and gaslights would have promoted the advancement of lighting.




Post 45

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent reply, Aaron.

Government is necessarily stuck in the status quo, in the realm of the currently possible. By going against the market, which is what eminent domain does, what currently exists is further stagnated. Innovation is retarded.

Necessity is the mother of invention and the land owner who refuses to sell may very well spark a major invention, a major innovation. His recalcitrance encourages a going back to the drawing board, a search for new ways of achieving the goal.

Contrary to how it may appear at first glance, eminent domain stifles progress.



Post 46

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

And we would have teleportation today were it not for Halliburton.



Post 47

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Humorous strawman analogy. Care to actually argue your point? How could government artificially subsidizing entrenched technology not stifle new competing developments?




Post 48

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I said yes because we confiscated the "lands" of the indians. Of course many of the tribes and nations did not believe in the ownership only the use. and as they were ignorant savages we had the right to take what they said they did not own. What the heck, they were usually shooting arrows at each other over it anyways. Surely a difference of philosophical view point is justification?

What about Drug Dealers? People who bought the property they have through ill gotten means? Do they have the right to property they gained violating the rights of others? Any parallels to the above paragraph?

Simply put we should not be taking property from others whether through the power of arms or deceit in a law abiding society. But does a society become law abiding by trickery and deceit even to ignorant savages?

We inherited this country from our ancestors, we should emulate however the best behaviors not the worst nor justify the worst as needed and necessary.



Post 49

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre wrote:

"And we would have teleportation today were it not for Halliburton."

Bullshit. Teleportation is a figment of science fiction because we don't have the necessary technology and understanding of the physical universe. Halliburton's got nothing to do with this, and I can't believe that you are still trying to justify the theft of land from rights-respecting individuals by the government for the purpose of some 'greater good'.



Post 50

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teleportation is a figment of science fiction because we don't have the necessary technology and understanding of the physical universe.

Not true. Beam me up, Scottie.

Sarah



Post 51

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The market for teleportation would be huge. So would be the market for practical personal aircraft. Because for one thing, millions of people whose time is very valuable are wasting several hours per day in their cars. They would pay a lot for these technologies. Making highway construction impossible is not required.

In any case, I don’t see much power in Aaron’s general truism about artificial prop-ups thwarting new innovations. The thwarting is marginal. The gas systems that used to light cities were heavily subsidized, but that didn’t and couldn’t stop the advance of electric lighting. Free hay would not have stopped the march of the auto. And wide, usable highways will not stop the personal helicopter once engineers figure out how to make it small, safe, cheap, with millions of them in the air at once in tight metro areas.

Jon



Post 52

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon wrote:
>>"And we would have teleportation today were it not for Halliburton."

Matthew replied:
>Bullshit.

Matthew, I think Jon's remark is ironic.

- Daniel



Post 53

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Millions of people whose time is very valuable are wasting several hours per day in their cars."

How much motive is avoiding that time spent to these people already? Long distance commuters I've known always made a very conscious choice when deciding to live far from where they worked, and could already have chosen differently if they valued those hours highly. Living close to where you work is almost always possible now - though those 'wide, usable highways' can make suburbs and longer commutes somehow more appealing.

Gas lighting homes was widely government provided or at least subsidized? Very interesting, please provide links or references as I'd like to learn more.

You are correct in the sense that discouraging innovation won't suppress it forever, only delay it. And I have a feeling that 100 years ago we'd have been having a pamphleteering based argument as you argued for tax-provided free hay.




Post 54

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron,

Not gas-lit homes, but cities—the streets. It is my understanding that these outdoor gas systems, which I assume were largely if not totally tax-provided, were the first market that Edison went after. Doesn’t matter, because you should get off the market distortion angle. Your best argument is a straightaway absolutist conception of property.

The problem with that conception is you have to reject Adam Reed’s examples from early in this thread, the one standing out for me being defensive use during war.

Matthew Graybosch is aghast that I am still arguing for theft. I am aghast that he is still arguing for dying at the hands of invading Russians because some Eskimo loves this particular igloo site *so very* much and has the ‘right’ to deny others to borrow it in order to fight off a common enemy. Matthew apparently would rather perish along with the rest of the continent than violate the property owner’s ‘rights’. And *I* have explaining to do?

Frankly, I’m as aghast at the absolutists as they are with me.

I’d like to hear from them about Adam’s defensive need example. Rick Pasotto seemed to bend a little when his only response was that the “taken” property would have to be given back after hostilities. There sure are a lot of “no” votes. Let’s hear from some of you. How do you justify that the whole continent must lie down and die because one malicious, probably clinically insane Eskimo doesn’t want to be inconvenienced?

Jon



Post 55

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True that arguing market efficiency means engaging in the same types of pragmat...er, contextualist, arguments that commonplace eminent domain advocates use. As with championing laissez-faire capitalism in general, both natural rights based approaches (eg. Rand, Rothbard) and economic efficiency based ones (eg. Mises, D Friedman) are usable and correct, though the natural rights based ones have more strength against extreme/bizarre/lifeboat-scenario instances.

Building a highway so soccer moms who don't want to live in the bustling city can choose to live in the 'burbs and commute further is hardly an extreme or lifeboat situation. Being on the front of a war is.

Are you abandoning advocating eminent domain for highway and other arbitrary everyday usage, and now only advocating it as a temporary expedient in extreme cases of war?

If so, I'll stop worrying about the general highway/school/Walmart eminent domain here since I believe you're the only one who has been promoting that as opposed to extreme scenarios. I'll have to think more about the Eskimo or defensive firewall cases as I hadn't considered them before when arguing with the much broader rampant advocacy of 'takings'.




Post 56

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Aaron,

I’m not backing from my highway example, just trying to keep the conversation going.

I’ve said a lot for now. I want to hear from the types who post on this topic only short things like, ‘pure evil. Period!’ and, ‘theft is theft.’

*80 %* responded “no”—that means they reject the defensive need example. I’m sure most do so in confidence the scenario is absurd, but for the rest—I am genuinely curious how they reconcile denying other’s their right to self-defense, i.e., their *life*, a superior right in this context, with only property rights as their excuse.

Jon



Post 57

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As objectivists, do you really believe one persons land is worth more than the benefit of the public? If so, I believe that you need to reevaluate your thinking.  The founding fathers had the foresight to insert a clause into the constitution  that allowed the country to grow and prosper in a manner that benefited all.

Amendment V
 "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" , US Constitution.


You can't argue with that. Next.




Post 58

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Robert Malcom,

In response to your question in Post #0,

I said YES.

Thank you.
Jbrad




Post 59

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jbrad-

Apparently ~80% of the people do argue with this, and assuming you followed the SCOTUS news recently you see just where the distortion of that 5th amendment clause has gotten us. My take on the constitution (I don't know who to attribute the quote to) - 'It isn't a perfect document - it's just better than what we have now.'

Jon-

*laugh* You want someone else to defend for a while. I don't mind lifeboat scenarios, but don't see focusing on the obscure minutea as opposed to worrying about takings of the style you propose which happen in everyday life. If you are serious, focusing on extreme scenarios only makes sense if you are attempting some kind of slippery slope approach.

I've been starting to think you're just playing devil's advocate anyway. Oh well. Regardless whether you're sincerely a full blown statist, Adam's original 3 scenarios from post #4 (http://solohq.com/Forum/PollDiscussions/0100.shtml#4) are actually interesting to think about.

1- building a defensive perimeter in anticipation of war

I disagree with Adam on that one. If you want to build a wall, make me an offer to buy or rent my land; convince me of the importance of the situation I'll probably deal with you at a modest price. If I stick to keeping my property, the solution isn't stealing it. It's really pretty simple - go to the neighbor behind me and build me outside the wall.

2- razing land which will eminently be conquered by an enemy (I'm assuming the 'igloo' reference was the same as this too)

I'm not one to throw around the term 'hostage' the way some people do when they want to justify bombing whole cities by saying everyone inside is a hostage. However, this circumstance does fit the hostage scenario, one where risking harm to someone in their or others' defense is acceptable only because at least that same harm will occur anyway. If no action is taken, I'll be killed and my home destroyed when the invader strikes my property.

Go ahead and try to get me off the property (and bulldoze that shoddy barn the enemy could somehow strategically use). Keep in mind the good point you made about hostage scenarios before though, concerning Bidinotto and a machine gun. If people with guns pointed at me are coming onto my property, I'm justified in shooting them - even if they think they are rescuers. Better explain the situation really well.

3- property being used or previously used in crime

If I'm currently using property in crime, that's a trivial scenario; I lose rights to the property. Property used in crime by someone else that I now unwittingly have is a bit more interesting.

If you steal a TV, pawn it, and I buy it to take home, I don't have legitimate claim to that TV since you never had legitimate right to sell it. If it's found that I have stolen property, it doesn't make me responsible for your original crime - but I have to relinquish the stolen goods. My claim for my loss of the TV is not with the victim, but with you, the thief who defrauded the pawn shop and myself.

The same principle applies to the other crime cases. Just as I can claim no meaningful property rights to a knife I used to stab someone or a torture room I locked them in, those would not be mine to legitimately transfer either. It's somewhat morbid, but a murdered corpse qualifies as stolen property as well.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.