A Question I got via PM

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol as much as you like. Provide a link where fair compensation wasnt received, until then its just a bunch of rhetoric. And "fair" means the value before the run up in prices due to the project itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn and kaj have pointed out, the compensation can only be 'just' if it is what the person who owns the property would like in exchange. But if the person was getting what he/she would like in exchange for his/her property, then there would be no need for the government to seize it. Therefore, compensation for land seized for eminent domain is never just.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then all disputes over value would be unresolvable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, totally. I mean, it would be totally impossible to allow to people to freely decide on the value of an object through fair exchange. I CANT THINK OF ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT EVER HAPPENING!!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol as much as you like. Provide a link where fair compensation wasnt received, until then its just a bunch of rhetoric. And "fair" means the value before the run up in prices due to the project itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn and kaj have pointed out, the compensation can only be 'just' if it is what the person who owns the property would like in exchange. But if the person was getting what he/she would like in exchange for his/her property, then there would be no need for the government to seize it. Therefore, compensation for land seized for eminent domain is never just.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then all disputes over value would be unresolvable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, totally. I mean, it would be totally impossible to allow to people to freely decide on the value of an object through fair exchange. I CANT THINK OF ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT EVER HAPPENING!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize that I didnt make it painfully obvious to you that resolving disputes over value implied a third party's analysis, such as the beloved DRO. (If the parties can freely decide amongst themselves, there would be no dispute).

DROs would be worthless in assessing what is "fair" in an AC world if the only valid measure of fairness is the perception of the parties to the dispute.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
DROs would be worthless in assessing what is "fair" in an AC world if the only valid measure of fairness is the perception of the parties to the dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

DROs might still be quite good at assessing 'market value'--they just wouldn't be able to force one party to buy or sell for this price, since that wouldn't be just.