# Eminent Domain in New London: Capitalism vs Personal Protections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542 "2005-02-23T15:51:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/61 "2005-02-25T20:07:42Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > So it’s everybody’s fault. Possibly true, but it doesn’t have any useful insight her. It isn’t a questin of “fault.” It’s a question of citizens having certain expectations and desires related to public services and how a municipality pays for those services. As long as local governments have to rely on assessments to pay for the goods and services that citizens expect, local governments are going to be looking for ways to maximize the economic development opportunites open to it. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/62 "2005-02-25T22:27:08Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > And why do they want that additional tax revenue? Because schools, trash pickup, police, roads (in localities that build their own), and municipal services cost money. You can either get the revenue from real estate taxes on residential uses or real estate taxes on commercial/industrial. It never ceases to amaze me that people want to have a high quality of life, with all the perks, but wail and gnash their teeth when you give them the price tag. It might perhaps be because, since teachers, police, govt road companies (Caltrans?) etc etc, in fact public employees in general are allllll unionized, meaning we know we’re getting ripped off by artificially high labor rates. Plus, its pretty rich to state we all expect govt to provide those services, when in many if not most areas its outright illegal for private companies to provide them. Dont ban private companies from picking up garbage, then raise taxes all the while crying about the high cost of services we expect to recieve. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/63 "2005-02-25T22:30:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hard to tell, from this description, whether you’re favoring one or the other. A lot of important things (e.g., America’s 19th-Century railroad construction) have been accomplished by mercantilist policies that might have been impossible to achieve via pure free-market capitalism. Well, except that of the first three transcon railroads, the only one that was profitable was the one that was completely privately run. But its nice to see you admit that the 19th century US wasnt a land of Laissez Faire capitalism. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/64 "2005-02-25T23:05:20Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I’ll take that bet, simply because this has become a really hot issue in recent years, and the Supreme Court does follow public opinion from time to time. > > I believe they will limit the scope of eminent domain considerably. I agree. (Note that this is not a “liberal vs. conservative” issue; it’s a personal rights vs. supposed public benefit issue. And those things tend to cut sharply across the classic spectrum – in the Pournelle Axes/ **Sentient Meat** two-dimensional diagram, they’re sharply divided on the vertical, not the horizontal plane. And from what I’ve seen posted so far, I find it really disturbing that **plnnr** seemingly has no conception of the distinction between “public” and “private” – granted that there can be a certain small amount of gray area. I hope he’ll prove my impression wrong. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/65 "2005-02-26T03:03:44Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > It might perhaps be because, since teachers, police, govt road companies (Caltrans?) etc etc, in fact public employees in general are allllll unionized, meaning we know we’re getting ripped off by artificially high labor rates. :dubious: By what logic do you classify as “artificial” any compensation negotiated through collected rather than individual bargaining? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/66 "2005-02-26T21:29:40Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > And why do they want that additional tax revenue? For politically sexy and/or lots-of-patronage jobs projects with which to buy votes, generally. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/67 "2005-02-28T12:53:22Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > It might perhaps be because, since teachers, police, govt road companies (Caltrans?) etc etc, in fact public employees in general are allllll unionized, meaning we know we’re getting ripped off by artificially high labor rates. Plus, its pretty rich to state we all expect govt to provide those services, when in many if not most areas its outright illegal for private companies to provide them. Dont ban private companies from picking up garbage, then raise taxes all the while crying about the high cost of services we expect to recieve. Virginia is a “right to work state” and it is not illegal for private companies to provide many municipal services through contract. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/68 "2005-02-28T13:01:58Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I > And from what I’ve seen posted so far, I find it really disturbing that **plnnr** seemingly has no conception of the distinction between “public” and “private” – granted that there can be a certain small amount of gray area. I hope he’ll prove my impression wrong. I wouldn’t be disturbed if I were you, **Polycarp**. The concept between “public” and “private” isn’t a _small_ amount of grey area in this case - it’s pretty big. That’s the crux of the entire matter and given that it has reached the Supreme Court I’d suggest that people alot smarter than me have differences of opinion on it as well. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/69 "2005-06-23T17:57:09Z")
An update on this issue: [Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html) In a 5 to 4 decision, the SCOTUS has decided that eminent domain can be used for private developments such as that at New London. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/70 "2005-06-24T01:48:14Z")
If a governing body came to me and said a wealthy person has offered more tax money for my land and is therefore entitled to it I would be… upset. Since I’m not one to sit in the back of the bus I’m not sure how I would react. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/71 "2005-06-24T02:48:53Z")
I’m wondering how the liberals feel about how each of the justices voted. The three consistent conservatives, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia all dissented, along with swing voter O’Conner. Is there even one liberal, on SDMB or elsewhere, who will concede that they did a good thing for the little guy? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/72 "2005-06-24T02:59:24Z")
> [@Plan B](#): > > I’m wondering how the liberals feel about how each of the justices voted. The three consistent conservatives, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia all dissented, along with swing voter O’Conner. Is there even one liberal, on SDMB or elsewhere, who will concede that they did a good thing for the little guy? I will. I find the majority opinion to be incredibly wrong, on a moral scale, if not a legal one. And don’t think I wasn’t shocked to the core to see that it was the Three Benchmen of the Apocalypse who came down on what I see to be the right side of this case… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/73 "2005-06-24T15:43:42Z")
I just wanted to say that I don’t think taking land from people without their consent is a proper characterization of capitalism. Capitalist philosophy posits freedom and volition as a necessary prerequisite for a free market. This issue is not capitalism versus personal protections, but socialism (or more precisely, Fabianism) versus personal protections. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/74 "2005-06-24T16:01:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I just wanted to say that I don’t think taking land from people without their consent is a proper characterization of capitalism. Capitalist philosophy posits freedom and volition as a necessary prerequisite for a free market. This issue is not capitalism versus personal protections, but socialism (or more precisely, Fabianism) versus personal protections. Capitalism also requires as a necessary condition well-defined and enforceable property rights, which is in many ways the basis for any government at all. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/75 "2005-06-26T00:22:34Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Capitalism also requires as a necessary condition well-defined and enforceable property rights, which is in many ways the basis for any government at all. I agree that the onus upon government is to secure the rights (property) of its citizens, but only for those who have given it constent. No man may be ethically governed without his free and willful consent. ---
**Author:** ![D505](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@D505](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D505)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542/76 "2005-06-26T02:52:46Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Capitalism also requires as a necessary condition well-defined and enforceable property rights, which is in many ways the basis for any government at all. Are you sure you mean _any_ government? Communist and other autocratic governments depend on property rights all belonging to the government, and they work fine. At least, fine for the people in The Party. Everyone else gets to starve to death but who cares since the government is stable. This SCOTUS dilution of the 5th amendment is a major step in the direction of an autocratic government. Giving such power to local governments makes me sick to my stomach… local government gets less media attention and so is far more likely to be corrupt. :mad: -d [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eminent-domain-in-new-london-capitalism-vs-personal-protections/291542.md?page=3)