NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest Lincoln/Douglas styled debate topic is on eminent domain. The exact resolution is:

"The use of the state's power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust."

I just wanted to hear your opinions and arguments, your arguments mainly. Please keep them non-empirical and somewhat philosophical. Although situations from history can be used. Anyways, stray away from personal stories.

"The use of the state's power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust."

Which state's?

bah LD, come over to the dark side and do Public Forum:D
i think that eminant domain is rediculos and should not be leagal anywhere in the US

"The use of the state's power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust."

Which state's?
states in the US. like Colorado California New Mexico Texas.......

bah LD, come over to the dark side and do Public Forum:D
i think that eminant domain is rediculos and should not be leagal anywhere in the US

Should we tear up all the railroads and demolish all the schools then? Also, we should definitely destroy all the roads.

Should we tear up all the railroads and demolish all the schools then? Also, we should definitely destroy all the roads.

Are most changes to American law retro-active, then?

Surely changing Eminent Domain law would only (of necessity) NEED to affect future projects?

And - SHOULDN'T the government have to trade and negotiate, just as any other group does?

On the main topic:

Eminent domain is a necessary power of the government if it is to complete all of its duties. If a road needs to be widened for the good of the community, one property owner who doesn't want to give up a small parcel of land (just a bit of their front yard, generally) shouldn't hold it up, but would, without eminent domain. If a school needs to be built/expanded, it needs to be built, and no one should hold that up. And so on....

The power should be, of course, narrowly tailored to prevent misuse. Obviously, a government should not be able to essentially force a transfer of property between two private entities. The taking of the property must be to serve the public, and must be protected from private interests.

Of course, it then gets fuzzy in cases like some of the more recent ones - where the government was taking property for a purpose they felt would serve the public. It was not a transfer from one private entity to another, as the private entity who would ultimately own the land was not yet known - only a general purpose for that land was known. And it is where it is fuzzy that you get into interesting conversations and you have to make sure that the law is clear.

Edit: Personally, I think the government should have access to eminent domain for schools, roads, etc. fairly easily - although too much use should certainly be stopped. However, in the more "fuzzy" cases, the government should have the burden of showing that the current use of the land is, in and of itself, harmful.

states in the US. like Colorado California New Mexico Texas.......

State's != states != states'

Are most changes to American law retro-active, then?

No, but if the "entire idea is ridiculous", then those things should never have been accomplished. One or two property owners, should they have decided to, should have been able to hold up the entire process.

Surely changing Eminent Domain law would only (of necessity) NEED to affect future projects?

Yup.

And - SHOULDN'T the government have to trade and negotiate, just as any other group does?

It does. Even under eminent domain, negotiations go on. The government must pay, at the least, fair market value for any and all property taken. But if some asshole wants $3 Million for a few feet of his front yard that are needed to widen a through-road, there's no way the road should be left the same just because he's an asshole.

No, but if the "entire idea is ridiculous", then those things should never have been accomplished. One or two property owners, should they have decided to, should have been able to hold up the entire process.


The entire idea is 'ridiculous' in as much as government is supposed to have only the rights and responsibilities allowed to it by citizens.

For a government to be able to assert a 'right' that is counter to the citizen, is, therefore, fundamentally ridiculous.


It does. Even under eminent domain, negotiations go on. The government must pay, at the least, fair market value for any and all property taken. But if some asshole wants $3 Million for a few feet of his front yard that are needed to widen a through-road, there's no way the road should be left the same just because he's an asshole.

Now - I see the need just as you do.... but this nation prides itself on it's staunch capitalistic values.... and, at the heart of capitalism is the assertion "This is MINE". If you allow persons to own 'private property', but then you ALSO allow a mechanism whereby that 'private property' can be conjoured back into the 'public domain', AGAINST the will of the 'owner'... then your 'capitalism' and your 'private property' are shams.

What you have is not 'ownership', but a form of 'indulgence'.

Eminent domain is very useful to the government, expecially when it comes to public works.

But abuse (as documented in Kelo v. New London) can happen.

Eminent domain is very useful to the government, expecially when it comes to public works.

But abuse (as documented in Kelo v. New London) can happen.

Useful, no doubt...

But, is it right?

Useful, no doubt...

But, is it right?

As in just?

As in just?

Sure.

That was how I intended it to be read... but if you want to answer it a different way, that's good, too.... :)

Sure.

That was how I intended it to be read... but if you want to answer it a different way, that's good, too.... :)

I was just trying to make sure you wern;t trying to pull some foozy up on me. *shiftyeyes*

Anyway, no, it's not just. Not much the government does is just. But it's nessesary.

/hobbsianthought

The entire idea is 'ridiculous' in as much as government is supposed to have only the rights and responsibilities allowed to it by citizens.

And this is one such right.

For a government to be able to assert a 'right' that is counter to the citizen, is, therefore, fundamentally ridiculous.

The government has all sorts of rights that are counter to the citizen but in the interest of the citizens. One could argue that a person should be able to drive his own car drunk, since it belongs to him. If he harms someone, they should just sue him. Of course, the government takes away his right - because it affects others - and, for the public good, will arrest him if he drives drunk, even if he has not actually harmed anyone.

A person who has committed a crime loses money/liberty/etc. for the public good.

All persons pay taxes (a loss of property) for the public good (sort of).

The point is, the government has the responsibility of protecting all citizens. If one particular citizen's wishes conflict with those of the general public, they can be overruled. Of course, they can't just be denied the right to property altogether, so they are fairly compensated for it, and can relocate elsewhere.

Now - I see the need just as you do.... but this nation prides itself on it's staunch capitalistic values.... and, at the heart of capitalism is the assertion "This is MINE".

Hehe. No, some people in this country think that this nation is built on "staunch capitalistic values." Like most countries, this one runs on a combination of capitalistic and socialistic principles. We don't like to admit it, but the country wouldn't run very well if it were purely based in either idea.

What you have is not 'ownership', but a form of 'indulgence'.

If that is true, then all ownership is nothing but "indulgence". There are all sorts of mechanisms by which property can be removed from a person. Force is the main one - the person with the most force can take control of property. Of course, this isn't allowed because society has decided that it shouldn't be and banded together to essentially have the most force.

Stealing by stealth is another way. Again, society isn't big on this, so they make sure there are mechanisms to prevent it or punish those who attempt it.

Eminent domain removes property against the will of the owner, but not without compensation of equal (monetary at least) value. Having this power serves the public good - that of society - the people who make the rules in the first place.

Thanks for the input guys.

The government has all sorts of rights that are counter to the citizen but in the interest of the citizens. One could argue that a person should be able to drive his own car drunk, since it belongs to him. If he harms someone, they should just sue him. Of course, the government takes away his right - because it affects others - and, for the public good, will arrest him if he drives drunk, even if he has not actually harmed anyone.

A person who has committed a crime loses money/liberty/etc. for the public good.

All persons pay taxes (a loss of property) for the public good (sort of).

The point is, the government has the responsibility of protecting all citizens. If one particular citizen's wishes conflict with those of the general public, they can be overruled. Of course, they can't just be denied the right to property altogether, so they are fairly compensated for it, and can relocate elsewhere.

The person driving the car can cause harm... the person committing the crime has done 'harm'.

The government responsibilities and rights are those relating to 'harm', in those cases.

There is no parallel in terms of being 'allowed' to 'take' property, for no harm done.


If that is true, then all ownership is nothing but "indulgence". There are all sorts of mechanisms by which property can be removed from a person. Force is the main one - the person with the most force can take control of property. Of course, this isn't allowed because society has decided that it shouldn't be and banded together to essentially have the most force.

Stealing by stealth is another way. Again, society isn't big on this, so they make sure there are mechanisms to prevent it or punish those who attempt it.

Eminent domain removes property against the will of the owner, but not without compensation of equal (monetary at least) value. Having this power serves the public good - that of society - the people who make the rules in the first place.

Conventional ownership is more 'concrete' perhaps.... If I seel you my car, there is no pretense that you own it, while I secretly retain the authority to take it back if I wish.

When the government allows citizens to own 'land', if they ALSO allow Eminent Domain... they are not truly allowing anything like genuine 'ownership'... they are just allowing you to 'sit there'... while they restrain their 'right' to take it back.

The person driving the car can cause harm... the person committing the crime has done 'harm'.

Not having schools or roads or police stations causes harm. A blighted neighboorhood causes harm. One or two people owning pretty much all housing in a large area causes harm.

When the government allows citizens to own 'land', if they ALSO allow Eminent Domain... they are not truly allowing anything like genuine 'ownership'... they are just allowing you to 'sit there'... while they restrain their 'right' to take it back.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the government can't just up and take land. It has never had that right, nor does it. It has to be doing so for the good of the public and has to pay you for your land, even if you would not willingly sell it. Since most of the land in this country was essentially sold or granted by the government in the first place, it isn't a huge stretch for them to have some control over it, especially when the public good necessitates it.

Luckily, there are restrictions on what uses eminent domain has, so that we aren't talking about constant takings of land for unreasonable uses. On top of that, there's the fact that a government that starts using it a lot will get voted out damn quick.

Not having schools or roads or police stations causes harm. A blighted neighboorhood causes harm. One or two people owning pretty much all housing in a large area causes harm.



Ah - but you are talking about RISK of harm... not proof of harm.

If the government doesn't takne my land to build a school, where is the PROOF that someone is harmed. They could, after all, take another piece of land.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that the government can't just up and take land. It has never had that right, nor does it. It has to be doing so for the good of the public and has to pay you for your land, even if you would not willingly sell it. Since most of the land in this country was essentially sold or granted by the government in the first place, it isn't a huge stretch for them to have some control over it, especially when the public good necessitates it.

Luckily, there are restrictions on what uses eminent domain has, so that we aren't talking about constant takings of land for unreasonable uses. On top of that, there's the fact that a government that starts using it a lot will get voted out damn quick.

Actually, the government can just up and take land... except for the CURRENT system which demands fair payment, and fair cause... but both of those 'safeguards' are optional to Eminent Domain.

Ironic, to refer to most of the land as being sold or given by the government... when it was 'owned' in it's entirety BEFORE the 'govenment' ever arrived on these shores...

But, it actually IS a pretty big stretch to allow the government to maintain this control AFTER it has given or sold propoerty. It IS being sold, not lent... thus, the government should, theoretically, be relinquishing all claim.

And, imagining for a second that the current government decided to practise a fast-and-loose version of Eminent Domain.... even if they WERE voted out, even on THAT as the 'hot-button-issue'... there are no guarantees that the 'precedent' would NOT be continued under whatever NEW regime.

Ah - but you are talking about RISK of harm... not proof of harm.

Drunk driving is only risk of harm. Driving too fast is only risk of harm. Driving without insurance is only risk of harm. You don't actually have to hurt anyone to be pulled over/prosecuted/fined for these.

If the government doesn't takne my land to build a school, where is the PROOF that someone is harmed. They could, after all, take another piece of land.

And how many times do they get pawned off to "another piece of land". If they don't have the authority to choose land and take it, there's a damn good chance that they won't find any at all, at least not at a price that the taxpayers can afford.

Actually, the government can just up and take land... except for the CURRENT system which demands fair payment, and fair cause... but both of those 'safeguards' are optional to Eminent Domain.

They aren't optional to our system of eminent domain, which is the only one I am supporting. =)

Ironic, to refer to most of the land as being sold or given by the government... when it was 'owned' in it's entirety BEFORE the 'govenment' ever arrived on these shores...

I'll agree with you there, although, from what I understand, most native tribes didn't feel that land could be "owned" at all.

And, imagining for a second that the current government decided to practise a fast-and-loose version of Eminent Domain.... even if they WERE voted out, even on THAT as the 'hot-button-issue'... there are no guarantees that the 'precedent' would NOT be continued under whatever NEW regime.

There are no guarrantees that Congress won't pass a law tomorrow stating that you have to sacrifice your firstborn son to Cthulu, but it isn't very likely, given the way the government works.

Repeating what others have said, but I agree that if a road needs to be built then there has to be a way for the government to get the land for the general welfare of the people. I have a hard time with the new ruling that says the government can take from one private person in order to give to another private person on the pretext that the second person will "develop" it in such a way as more taxes will be paid. And the increase in taxes is for the general welfare of the people. Just because one man is richer than another why should the government force the poor man to sell, so the rich man can get richer?

Drunk driving is only risk of harm. Driving too fast is only risk of harm. Driving without insurance is only risk of harm. You don't actually have to hurt anyone to be pulled over/prosecuted/fined for these.



And how many times do they get pawned off to "another piece of land". If they don't have the authority to choose land and take it, there's a damn good chance that they won't find any at all, at least not at a price that the taxpayers can afford.



They aren't optional to our system of eminent domain, which is the only one I am supporting. =)



I'll agree with you there, although, from what I understand, most native tribes didn't feel that land could be "owned" at all.



There are no guarrantees that Congress won't pass a law tomorrow stating that you have to sacrifice your firstborn son to Cthulu, but it isn't very likely, given the way the government works.

You'll see that I put the native 'own' in single-quotes... that is because I agree with you. Most native people had no formal system of ownership... certainly not of 'the land'.

Funny thing is, of course - THAT model makes much more sense than the model we currently apply. Eminent Domain is irrelevent, if the land is just where we live, rather than a possession.

I have to point out now, that I am finding this debate pretty tough going.

I'm not for Eminent Domain... for just the reason I state above... I find the whole idea of 'owning' land somewhat ridiculous. Thus, I am trying to argue against Eminent Domain, from a perspective I don't have any sympathy for.

(My own viewpoint, if we MUST exist in this situation, is that the State MUST be able to practise Eminent Domain - because I believe there is value in 'the greatest good, for the greatest number').

The entire idea is 'ridiculous' in as much as government is supposed to have only the rights and responsibilities allowed to it by citizens.

For a government to be able to assert a 'right' that is counter to the citizen, is, therefore, fundamentally ridiculous.

Surely you jest. The government asserts itself against individual citizens all the time on behalf of other citizens.

In the eminent domain circumstance, simple utilitarianism applies. A development (be it a road, school, or shopping mall) is in the best interests of the community. The interest of one citizen simply yields to that of the majority.

This is not to suggest that eminent domain is unfettered. It can only narrowly be applied. Otherwise the individual's right to private property is paramount.



Now - I see the need just as you do.... but this nation prides itself on it's staunch capitalistic values.... and, at the heart of capitalism is the assertion "This is MINE". If you allow persons to own 'private property', but then you ALSO allow a mechanism whereby that 'private property' can be conjoured back into the 'public domain', AGAINST the will of the 'owner'... then your 'capitalism' and your 'private property' are shams.

What you have is not 'ownership', but a form of 'indulgence'.

A rather self-serving use of strawmen in order to argue a side point --- that capitalism is a sham.

Eminent domain has always co-existed with capitalism.

The person driving the car can cause harm... the person committing the crime has done 'harm'.

The government responsibilities and rights are those relating to 'harm', in those cases.

There is no parallel in terms of being 'allowed' to 'take' property, for no harm done.

You convenient skipped over Dem1's example of taxes.

The government responsibilities and rights regarding eminent domain are written into the Constitution itself and are thus allowed with the consent of the governed.



Conventional ownership is more 'concrete' perhaps.... If I seel you my car, there is no pretense that you own it, while I secretly retain the authority to take it back if I wish.

When the government allows citizens to own 'land', if they ALSO allow Eminent Domain... they are not truly allowing anything like genuine 'ownership'... they are just allowing you to 'sit there'... while they restrain their 'right' to take it back.

Ownership is a legal concept defined by the framework of the society in which it exists. You may "own" your home, but actually owe a mortgage.
There are simply many legal burdens such as right of ways and susceptibility to eminent domain which are included in the definition of ownership of land.

Surely you jest. The government asserts itself against individual citizens all the time on behalf of other citizens.

In the eminent domain circumstance, simple utilitarianism applies. A development (be it a road, school, or shopping mall) is in the best interests of the community. The interest of one citizen simply yields to that of the majority.

This is not to suggest that eminent domain is unfettered. It can only narrowly be applied. Otherwise the individual's right to private property is paramount.

it is when the government seizes MY land in order to sell it cheaply to a developer (as in the shoppping mall) that needs to be made illegal in every state.

it is wrong to allow local governments to condemn well maintained property with paid up taxes in the hopes of getting more tax money out of the NEXT private owner.

since the supreme court did not find that a violation of the constitution, the individual states need to ban it. the chances of abuse and corruption are just too high.

it is when the government seizes MY land in order to sell it cheaply to a developer (as in the shoppping mall) that needs to be made illegal in every state.

it is wrong to allow local governments to condemn well maintained property with paid up taxes in the hopes of getting more tax money out of the NEXT private owner.

since the supreme court did not find that a violation of the constitution, the individual states need to ban it. the chances of abuse and corruption are just too high.

The Supreme Court has had no case in which that was the issue, at least not one that I know of.

Of course, there was the Kelo case, which did not involve a shopping mall and the purpose of the government was not "getting more taxes out of the next private owner." Even so, I think it was a step too far. You are correct, I think, that either the individual state governments or Congress should enact laws further restricting the use of eminent domain.

i do the LD thing too, so we could help each other out

i'm personally against using it in any case without approval of a court (as the constitution intended), but i'm especailly agaisnt it for use in benefiting private citizens. wealth redistribution makes me sick, not to mention the corruption involved.

it also interferes with naturally effecient market economies, which can be bad.

The Supreme Court has had no case in which that was the issue, at least not one that I know of.

Of course, there was the Kelo case, which did not involve a shopping mall and the purpose of the government was not "getting more taxes out of the next private owner." Even so, I think it was a step too far. You are correct, I think, that either the individual state governments or Congress should enact laws further restricting the use of eminent domain.
i dont remember what they took the land for in kelo except that it was for private development. they are now trying to get RENT out of those who took the case to the supreme court for the years that they held the land that it turned out the city could legally take.

there is a community in california where the city (i dont remember which one, the husband told me about this case) where they are condemning a whole seaside neighborhood of older homes because the new proposed developers can put up condos (or bigass houses)

this sort of thing makes me livid.

i also think that in regular eminent domain cases where the land is condemned for public use more care needs to be taken in making sure that the land MUST be taken and that only the amount absolutely needed is taken (unless the person wishes to sell more to the entitity condemning it).

i have never known anyone who received actual fair market value for the land that was taken by the government. there must be cases of it (probably the land of the rich or powerful) but im unaware of any. this should be stopped. the public should not be allowed to steal someones land by paying them less than fair market value. (meaning, in my opinion, that if you pay half what they could get on the open market, you have bought half and stolen the rest)

A rather self-serving use of strawmen in order to argue a side point --- that capitalism is a sham.


Not at all. Where was the strawman?

Is capitalism not founded on a principle of ownership and/or acquisition?

Surely, the point I was making was NOT that "capitalism is a sham"... but that a form of ownership whereby one doesn't 'own' what one 'owns'... makes a sham of both 'capitalism' and 'ownership'.

And - of course I realise that 'ownership' is not the only capitalist exchange possible.... one can make a variety of temporary exchanges, for incremental gains... but renting/leasing/borrowing etc. all have their 'contractual' limitations built in and explicit.

i dont remember what they took the land for in kelo except that it was for private development.

The particular land in question was for private development, but it was part of a larger plan that included all sorts of things - both explicitly public and less public lands. The main point made in the decision was that, while the general purpose of the land had been decided, the exact developers who would eventually purchase it had not.

they are now trying to get RENT out of those who took the case to the supreme court for the years that they held the land that it turned out the city could legally take.

Well, technically, they were squatting on land that was not their own. It's a dick thing to do, but perfectly legal.

there is a community in california where the city (i dont remember which one, the husband told me about this case) where they are condemning a whole seaside neighborhood of older homes because the new proposed developers can put up condos (or bigass houses)

If they have already proposed developers, Kelo most likely cannot be used as precedent.

this sort of thing makes me livid.

Me too, which is why I think stricter regulations must be placed on the power. In the case of schools, etc, the public use is obvious. However, if the end-use for the land will be private in nature, the government should have to demonstrate that the current use is, in and of itself, harmful. ((Thus, Kelo would be improper under my view).

i also think that in regular eminent domain cases where the land is condemned for public use more care needs to be taken in making sure that the land MUST be taken and that only the amount absolutely needed is taken (unless the person wishes to sell more to the entitity condemning it).

I'd certainly agree here.

i have never known anyone who received actual fair market value for the land that was taken by the government. there must be cases of it (probably the land of the rich or powerful) but im unaware of any. this should be stopped. the public should not be allowed to steal someones land by paying them less than fair market value. (meaning, in my opinion, that if you pay half what they could get on the open market, you have bought half and stolen the rest)

The only people I've known who had land taken were my parents, who had a small portion of the front yard taken when the road was paved (something they very much wanted to happen anyways). As I recall, they never actually received the check for it, but simply didn't worry about it.

The law, as far as I know, calls for fair market value to be paid. If it is not being paid, then there is definitely a problem.