Its like this, for the most part I see the State as an organism that for the most part is pretty inefficient and sort of stupid. If we are very, very lucky it is not actively harmful to the people.
There exists a concept, which seems to be falling out of fashion, of the Commons. To me, classically, these are things that exist in the Public sphere that are accessible to all citizens and useful to all of them as well. Things like libraries, museums, park, bridges, roads and the like. As a citizen, I can tangibly enjoy things that exist in this realm and benefit from them directly. The State can be fairly begin and even at times not suck at administering these things.
When you take this concept into the abstract, it is my opinion that the State starts to kind of suck. It is one thing for the State to fund universities and other public works because it sees these things as a benefit to the whole community, and quite another for it to do things because, what, it will add more tax money to the coffers? Then it will later go do good stuff with those moneys? To say nothing of the fact that the State just sucks at looking at all of the consequences. Sure, the big office building will bring in more tax dollars, but what about the impact of traffic, sewer lines and so forth?
Further, when you look at this through the concept of the Commons you see that these private developers have no stake in them other than to take all that they can from them for as little cost as possible. The relationship is fundamentally different and, I think, stacked against the communities that will be impacted.
It is one think to be consistent philosophically in how you view your politics but I think that you have not quite looked at the big picture here.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Just because you reduce modern liberalism to an inaccurate soundbyte (“liberals love big government!”) doesn’t make it true, nor does it make it hypocritical for people living in the real world to hold more nuanced positions. By your logic, anyone who opposes government interference in private citizens’ lives who isn’t holed up in a shack in Montana writing manifestos is a hypocrite. Dumbass.
The relevant part of the 5th Amendment states: “… [N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The difference between the majority opinion and the minority opinion is over what “public use” means. The majority, relying, in part, on a 1906 case written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, finds that “public use” goes beyond the simple test of whether or not the public gets to use the property. Instead, the majority found, as precedent has held, that public use includes for a public purpose. The Court went on to find that (perhaps to increase “self-governence”, eh, Bricker?) they should defer to the legislature’s judgments in this area. The Court went on to find that the economic development plan created by the city had a legitimate purpose and was not irrational. Thus, since just compensation was paid, it was not a violation of the takings clause.
That presupposes that tearing down a block of houses to build a WalMart is solving a “social problem,” as opposed to creating one. The social problem this liberal perceives is that corporations wield disproportionate power in this country as compared to individuals, and the recent SCOTUS decision exacerbates, rather than remedies, that social problem. So take your accusations of hypocrisy and cram 'em, Dave.
Perhaps Weirddave simply omitted the word ‘justices’ from the offending sentence[ul][]John Paul Stevens[]David Souter[]Ruth Bader Ginsburg[]Stephen G. Breyer[/ul]
It’s just a natural progression from eminent domain laws. They used to do it when they condemned land to build low-cost homes for the poor, which were built by a private company. It’s just now codified.
Emotionally charged characterizations may have there place, but this ain’t it!
Financing a business loan with tax money and seizing property via eminent domain and giving it to a business are similiar in that they both involve taking something and giving it to a private company, but they differ in what they take and that’s important, because there’s a BIG, BIG diference between money and real property.
Money is created by the government. It can take it out of circulation; it can put more in circulation. Currency with numismatic value notwithstanding, one particular $20 bill is as valuable to someone as any other $20 bill.
A given piece of real property can not be created. It’s unique. It is not equally valuable to someone as a similiar piece of property somewhere else.
With that in mind, the differences between the two situations are obvious.
For example, with a small-business loan program, ANYONE can apply for a small business loan, because there’s nothing special about the money being loaned. You’re not going to turn down a loan because the guy in line before you got the money that you wanted. The program can equally serve an arbitrary number of companies.
Land is not like this. That parcel of land is unique. Someone wanting one particular 8 acre tract won’t be just as happy with a similar 8 acre tract 100 miles away. When you give land to a developer, the land is primarily going to benefit that developer. It will disproportionally benefit a single company.
I disagree. This is not about government solving social problems, like public education or ensuring good, non-predatory health care for all of its citzens. This is about corporate welfare. Eminent domain will not be used to sieze a Wal Mart and build low-cost housing. Eminent domain will be used to sieze housing and build a Wal Mart.
Oh my God!! The scales have fallen from my eyes!! Government intervention – not good in every case! Who woulda thunk it? It’s like a brainstorm! Of course, I don’t ever remember making that claim, and I’ve certainly never made it in this thread, but you’re so much smarter than me you must be correct when you put words in my mouth. Maybe if you actually read my posts, your analysis would be even more cogent and insightful than the breathtaking extent to which it already is. Or, y’know, maybe it’d make you look like you had your head up your ass.
The only stupid thing here, asshole, is your unwillingness to be honest about what exactly it is that you unthinkingly espouse (I’m a Liberal! Yay me!) I never said “Liberals love big government” (My God, an actual Moderator misatributing quotes! Seems to me you might want to brush up on the rules that you are supposed to be enforcing.), what I said was that Cliffy’s quote was an accurate description of classic American Liberal philosophy. To quote again, because you seem to have your head up your ass and missed it the first couple of times it was posted in this thread:
You want to tell me exactly what about that quote isn’t accurate?
No, it doesn’t. In fact, you brain dead troglodyte, if you’d bothered to read what I actually wrote, you’d be dumbfounded to realize that taking a more nuanced position, specifically in deciding issues based upon their individual merits rather than stuffing everything into an ideological straightjacket, *is exactly what I am advocating here. *Jesus, wasn’t reading comprehension required where you went to school?
My comments weren’t meant to represent your position, they were meant to mock your statement about philosophical inconsistency. Consistency can be taken to ridiculous extremes.
Leaving aside all the heat and withholding any assumptions I have (which have seemingly been proved wrong, at least on this subject, by many posts in this thread), would someone who is self identified as a ‘liberal’ like to tackle exactly why you think that this decision goes against either ‘classical’ or ‘modern’ liberal thought? Or is this just a break from the mainstream liberal position by ‘liberals’ on this board who seem to have a wide streak of libertarianism in their blood?
I have to admit that my own reaction was one of distaste when reading this decision, and that my assumption, based on what I thought was mainstream liberal thought, was that they would enthusiastically support such a thing.
If liberals don’t support this, then who does exactly? Certainly libertarians are pulling out their hair over such a beast as this…its directly counter to their core philosophy. Conservatives? On the surface I wouldn’t think so, and it certainly seems that those justices who are normally identified as ‘conservative’ didn’t support the decision. Is it only big business that supports this then?
Binary, in the abstract your analysis requires that private developers are running the show. But they’re not – they can only get their hands on condemned land if they can convince the government to condemn it for them. Therefore, all the horrble things you note about developers, such as the concentration only on stockholders’ interests, whether true or not (and I think they are true but they’re not horrible), don’t really matter – because before anything happens, the government has to first determine that the development would be good for the community.
Now in the real world, such a determination can certainly be the result of a corrupt or ineffectual government, but that’s not a reason to take the power away. Instead, it’s a reason to pay attention to politics, so that it doesn’t happen in your town.
You’re going to find very few America liberals who will be pleased with this decision. Even if you believe government can solve social ills, there are limits: perhaps not always clearly or consistently defined, but they do exist. As many posters here have stated, emminent domain being used to build schools, public transportation infrastructure, parks, or Og help us even highways is one thing; seizing private property for the benefit of private development is quite another. Perhaps there is an indirect benefit to the community, but the direct benefit is to private developers. NO liberal is going to be happy about that!
I can’t see how the SCOTUS decision is anything other than another of many recent serious fuck-overs of our democracy. A well-deserved pit!
Sure, tearing down Grandma’s house to build a Wal-Mart is an easy one. We can all agree that that’s EEEEEVIL, but what about, to quote our esteemed moderator, a more nuanced situation? How about tearing down housing to build Harborplace? It’s done wonders for the city of Baltimore, but people lost their homes for it. At it’s heart, it’s just a pair of shopping malls, profiting the Rouse Company and the tenants. In practice it’s a vital attraction, pouring millions of dollars in tax revenues into the city and revitalizing downtown. So tell me, Harborplace: Good or Bad?
I’m REALLY interested in what you think my ideology is. Please, tell me what it is that you believe I stand for.
I wasn’t implying any of that, I was just saying that there’s no need to rely on appeals to emotion in this case. We have stronger arguments; saying that you don’t want to give more money to mustache-twirling monocle-wearers just opens the door for stoma-fucking tools like Weirddave to start ranting about how liberals hate the wealthy; have a wealth fetish; can’t back up their arguments with reason; etc.
