RoR: Forum

Protagonist -- This is exactly the argument I and most others here are opposed to. Thank you for making it so clearly.

"The solution: these independent business and free citizens have formed a democratically elected government. That government has the power of eminent domain--to take land for public use. Under this situation, the state would (1) decide the land to take, (2) give just notice to the owners and allow them to appear at a hearing to dispute the public necessity and prove the value of their property, (3) the court would make the just rulings, (4) the state would offer the owners the fair market value of their property, and (5) the state takes possession of the property.

Let me repeat (4) because I think this is commonly forgotten about eminent domain: The state is giving the owners the monetary value of their property. There is no net loss to its owners. The owners can take the money the state gives them and buy another parcel of land.. You could argue that this price would not include "intrinsic" or "sentimental" value of the property. But even if you want consider the subjective, irrational whims of some owners, a court could consider these factors is its valuation and augment what it pays the owners accordingly."

If you've read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged you will recall that this so called right of the "democratic majority" to sieze and loot the private property of individuals was one of the major issues dealt with in that book. The value I place on my own property CANNOT BE DECIDED BY ANYONE ELSE. It is MINE and absolutely mine until I decide otherwise. Fair market value, or any other value placed on it by other people is trivial and meaningless.

"Under modern law, people can't just be allowed "to do whatever they want with their own land." If they did, they could easily wreck marketable title for all their neighbors. Thus zoning and eminent domain law--when not abused--protect property rights, and don't destroy them."

If property rights are respected in the manner I am advocating then people would have the absolute right to do whatever they want with their own property unless their actions are in some way violating the rights of other property owners (which means doing something which constitutes a direct initiation of force). The ethical solution to the issue of maintaining what you call "marketable title" is not zoning laws or eminent domain but instead legal contracts between property owners agreeing to maintain certain standards and to abide by certain rules about the use of their property for mutual benefit. The home owners association is an example of this type of contract. It is something which is directly agreed to by the individual property owner and not forced upon him by some collectivist mob. I hope you can understand this distinction because it is very important.

- Jason

Post 101

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 2:17am

The ethical solution to the issue of maintaining what you call "marketable title" is not zoning laws or eminent domain but instead legal contracts between property owners agreeing to maintain certain standards and to abide by certain rules about the use of their property for mutual benefit.

This statement is correct. Ideally, buyers and sellers of real estate would have full disclosure to the aspects of the property being conveyed, with no fraud or secrecy, and take the necessary due diligence to insure that their property rights are secure and that they have not harmed the property rights of others. They'd be smart enough, and honest enough, to conduct a smooth transaction among consenting parties.

But we do not live in an ideal world. When left to their own devices, buyers and sellers of land can act very irrationally, ignorantly and dishonestly. Until we're all objectivist, we're still going to have this problem (and maybe even afterwards). Until then, were have rational laws made by rational people, to make irrational people do the rational act, in order to protect the rational interest of rational people. Rationally.

The value I place on my own property CANNOT BE DECIDED BY ANYONE ELSE. It is MINE and absolutely mine until I decide otherwise. Fair market value, or any other value placed on it by other people is trivial and meaningless.

Hmmm. Your asserting objective property rights (good against the whims the entire world) in order to justify a subjective valuation of the property (determined by the whim of the owner). If the "gold mine" I owned contained only pyrite, then it would be immoral, by objectivist standards, for me to value it as a gold mine. Mining for pyrite, thinking or hoping it was gold, would not be conductive to my survival qua human. In that sense, if the government were to condemn my land, give me fair market value for it, not only would it be adding to the value of the property or endeavors of others, but it would be saving me from myself.

Still, your half right. The objective right is absolutely yours, but it is an objective right for the objective fair market value of the land.

Yes, you may have the right to waste your land and be irrational, but that's like saying you have the right to blow up your car. You can only do so when the flames aren't going to get in anyone else's way.

Post 102

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 2:43pm

Protagonist -- A suggestion. It looks like you've read some Objectivist writings because you certainly have the terminology down pat. But just because you know the lingo doesn't mean that your posts are somehow based upon Objectivist premises.

Here is my absolute favorite:

"were have rational laws made by rational people, to make irrational people do the rational act, in order to protect the rational interest of rational people. Rationally."

Including the word rational as many times as possible within a few sentences does not make the content of what you are saying any more rational. Between these two posts you have wormed around to several viewpoints and finally in this final section you got to the crux of the issue -- possibly by accident or possibly because you knew your arguement was going nowhere. So you tried to slide this bit in at the end even though it contradicts most of what you wrote before hand.

"Yes, you may have the right to waste your land and be irrational, but that's like saying you have the right to blow up your car. You can only do so when the flames aren't going to get in anyone else's way."

And this is of course the point where someone's use of their property is violating the rights of other individuals and is the only time where any kind of government intervention is ethical. If you actually believed in this principle in the beginning the worming around and lame usage of Randian terminology would not have been necessary.

- Jason

Post 103

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 10:17am

Mr. Quintana, do you have anyway to disprove my arguments other than to attack my word usage or accuse me of heresy from objectivism? That is not based on objectivist premises.

The "car" scenario is perfectly consistent defense of eminent domain. If a dozen owners can sell a dozen parcels of land for $1M each, but one hold-out will make the other 11 sell their parcels for only $100k, then the hold-out is in effect destroying $9.9M worth of his neighbor's property. There's alot of collateral damage to the hold-out deciding to use his property in a wasteful manner.

Post 104

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 3:34pm

No - that is presupposing an intrinsic value on the cars. And there is no such thing as intrinsic values [see Tara Smith's Viable Values]

Post 105

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 5:13pm

Protagonist -- you need to check your underlying premises about ethical responsibility. This arguement works only if your ethics are based upon collectivist premises. You assume that people have certain positive obligations to their neighbors. This is not a viewpoint that you will find among Objectivists.

If we want to live in a society with other people we are obliged NOT to do certain things to our fellow citizens -- we must not attack them, steal from them, defraud them or destroy their property. Doing these things constitutes an initiation of force and this creates a valid reason for government response.

However, I am not obliged to anything FOR my neighbors. In the case of your example -- the fact that all of my neighbors agree that their property is worth a certain price and that they all want to sell it does not put me under any obligation to do the same nor does it give them any right to "out vote" me. The property is mine to do whatever I please with as long as I am not doing anything with it that falls within the catagory of an initiation of force. I suggest Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and certain sections of Atlas Shrugged for more clarification on these issues.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/01, 5:21pm)

Post 106

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 5:49pm