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.
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.
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.
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.
:dubious: By what logic do you classify as “artificial” any compensation negotiated through collected rather than individual bargaining?
For politically sexy and/or lots-of-patronage jobs projects with which to buy votes, generally.
Virginia is a “right to work state” and it is not illegal for private companies to provide many municipal services through contract.
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.
An update on this issue:
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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