RoR: Forum

Who the hell said 'yes' in this poll?

Post 1

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:00am

Perhaps stating that it is NEVER justified seems too much like an intrinsisist statement?

Post 2

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 9:52am

If you own property, it is yours. Allowing eminent domain means OTHERS' needs outweigh your rights. They never can. So eminent domain is wrong, period.

Post 3

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 11:25am

Well, plenty of people around here seemed to be behind The Lost Liberty Hotel, me included. But as to whether it's justified is a different matter. In my eyes, war is never justifiable, but it is sometimes necessary. A lesser of two evils sort of thing.

Sarah

Post 4

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 12:03pm

Putting EVER in all-caps communicates an intrinsicist, context-insensitive semantic - and thus forces a YES if one considers the question from an Objectivist (and therefore context-sensitive) perspective. I can think of 3 contexts in which a "taking" is justifiable:

1. If the property is required for the continuity of a defensive perimeter in wartime, or under threat of war.

2. Again in wartime, when it becomes likely that the property will be seized by enemy forces, and resources or improvements on the property must be removed or destroyed to prevent offensive use by the enemy.

3. If there is an objective cause to believe that the property is or was being used in actual crime - for example, to imprison a kidnap victim, or to bury the corpse of a murder victim - and the property must be seized to restore a victim's rights, or to preserve evidence for a trial.

Yes, context matters.

Post 5

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 1:05pm

What principle, if not the 'public good', is behind those examples where you see context as overriding the rights of individuals?

Why would this principle not also apply to other people wanting roads, schools, Walmarts, etc. more than your house?

Post 6

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 1:35pm

Aaron,

Respect for the rights of others is moral - that is, it promotes one's own life - in the context of mutual benefit from cooperation and trade. Roads and schools are within the scope of mutual benefit from cooperation and trade; wars and crimes are outside of it.

I discuss context-tracking in greater detail here .

Post 7

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 2:29pm

Adam,

Your three examples might justify forcibly using the property in question for a time, but come no where near justifying its permanent expropriation, the permanent transfer of its title.

Post 8

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 2:39pm

'OOP and Objectivist Epistemology' is an interesting concept.

Your point in scope tracking appears to be that if you feel that any of: A) you don't have conditions of existence where survival is possible, B) you cannot benefit from cooperation and trade, or C) the people you are dealing with are irrational, then you have no ethical bounds on your actions. You cite lifeboat scenarios and using force to prevent suicide as examples for B and C, respectively.

Why should I as a highway builder not use force to take a hold-out landowners' land when they refuse to cooperate and trade with me? (and I may further regard their clinging to their land instead of taking my 'fair-market' price to be irrational)

Post 9

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:02pm

Yes.

As long as the project is really good, (like a highway that will get me home thirty minutes faster) and the property is sufficiently shitty, like a hotdog stand.

I favor paying holders 2 to 3 times value.

Before anyone has an aneurism, answer these questions with your response: Do you own any real estate? If yes, how do you feel about being paid, today, 2 to 3 times what it�s worth? And how will you be doing if this keeps happening to you over and over again?

Your hotdog stand is not your arm. Quit your bitching and go set yourself up about one hundred yards that way.

Jon

Post 10

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:51pm

Reed,-

1. If the property is required for the continuity of a defensive perimeter in wartime, or under threat of war.

2. Again in wartime, when it becomes likely that the property will be seized by enemy forces, and...

3. If there is an objective cause to believe that the property is or was being used in actual crime - for example

Surely any good citizen would be unruffled, even eager, to comply on such grounds- in which it would not be a compromise of their rights.
And surely any citizen who did not would be using their property, powers and rights to initiate force on others- in which case there are no rights being conflicted with.

Your hotdog stand is not your arm.

Yes it is!

Who was that famous tennis player (or his father) who had an airplain from Columbia crash outside his house? His front lawn & house was used as a field hospital. I can't imagine he imagined refusing, nor that there could be any possible grounds in our philosophy- but if he did refuse...it is his arm.

Post 11

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 5:42pm

Ignore the homeowner's own value of their property for now (eminent domain requires ignoring this in any case). How do you go about determining what the property is 'worth'? Choose the lowest appraisal you can get? The highest? Median? Perhaps the highest offer the homeowner can find if forced to put out 'for sale' ads for x period of time (and the pending usage of eminent domain somehow kept secret of course) ?

Whichever benchmark you choose, say you come up with the 'value' of their real estate as $120,000. That means by your method that you would have to pay them 3 times this, $360,000, for their home.

If you are actually willing to pay this, then even ignoring the homeowner's value of the home, your own willingness to pay $360,000 in and of itself means that the property is worth at least that sum.

Post 12

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:50pm

I agree, when Canada decides to invade us and I'm fighting, if you house can provide me some cover from their hockey pucks then i'm going to jump in it.

Now i do consider rendering a property less usable is a taking so in that reguard I can't be against eminent domain. Like Mr. Reed said, if we can't hold your home and it would be valuable to an enemy, we're going to burn it down. I would just make an amendment saying something along the lines of "only during wartime" or something like that.

Post 13

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 7:05pm

Rick Pasotto,

You are right - when the property is no longer required for defense in war or for criminal justice, the original owner should be first in line to get it back (provided he returns an appropriate fraction of the compensation he received when it was first requisitioned.)

Post 14

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 7:57pm

�your own willingness to pay $360,000 in and of itself means that the property is worth at least that sum.�

Yes, it does. It is worth many times that to thousands if not millions of people. Let�s give the louse $720,000 so we can be sure of ourselves as we laugh at his tears.

Jon

Post 15

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:01pm

Jon, you said:

As long as the project is really good

That's the problem, good for who? you? The public?

Suppose you offer owner X 2-3 time the fair market value, but they don't want to sell. Is forcing this issue ok? Of course it isn't. Obviously, if they don't want to sell for 2-3 times the fair market value, it because their property is of more value to them!

Now, I drive an hour-and-a-half to work, one way. I'd love to get back and forth in less time, but not if it means forcibly removing someones property.

Ethan

Post 16

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:34pm

Ethan,

I assure you that when my property is being eyed for some major development, and I am finding myself saying no to generous offers, the reason will not be that I honestly think it is worth more. The reason will be that I believe that YOU and all the other taxpayers will be willing to pay me MORE�If only I hold out and cry a lot.

Jon

Post 17

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:46pm

Ethan,

Here�s a question for you:

A new highway could get you home in 40 instead of 90 minutes. Twelve hundred homeowners, sixty-four pet store strip malls and five hotdog stands have taken the money and ran away. One dipshit with eighteen rottweilers in his back yard says �no.�

What now?

Jon

Post 18

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:58pm

Ah Jon - you DO think we exist for the sake of others, huh...

after all, that IS the basis for eminent domain...

(Edited by robert malcom on 7/02, 9:00pm)

Post 19

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 9:06pm