A Question I got via PM

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation."

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ "just" compensation...

[/ 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.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation."

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ "just" compensation...

[/ 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 ]

There's only one definition of fair that matters -- and it isn't your definition unless its your property.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation."

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ "just" compensation...

[/ 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 ]

It is impossible to promise that something is "fair compensation" unless you give the recipient and opportunity to disagree.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).

The private landowner may choose to preserve the forest for future sale and hope the asset appreciates, but the value of that forest is likely tied up in the lumber available, so the next owner will also have strong incentive to exploit it.

As far as global warming goes, I'm usually able to predict what the anarchist arguments will be, particularly on a topic I'm interested in like the environment and I have no idea where Borodog is going with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trees are a renewable resource... I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but I would bet the lumber companies plant more trees in a year than the govt, and the tree huuging orgs plant in 5 years.

Throw in the fact that govt protected forests are not maintained very well, and dry brush ignites and burns thousands of acres of land every year.... what is the harm in cutting trees down for profit? Is it better for them to burn at no profit? I like wood, you can build houses, make baseball bats, and pencils and toothpicks out of it. What can you do with a tree that has burnt to the ground?

[Copernicus]

[ 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. "Market value" is called that because its a standard that can be judged by an independent third party from a review of actual transactions. One party's contention that his property is worth $200,000 when no similar property has sold for more than $50,000 doesnt mean that $200,000 is the "just" price.

Your conclusion points out exactly why theres a prolem with your defintion...you wind up in a situation where no compensation is "just", which is clearly untenable in a market based society.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
One party's contention that his property is worth $200,000 when no similar property has sold for more than $50,000 doesnt mean that $200,000 is the "just" price.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bob owns a house and wants to sell it for $200,000, then it doesn't matter whether you think his price is way too high given what other similar houses have sold for, or too low, or whatever. It's his house, and part of being that owner of said house means he can ask whatever the [censored] he wants when selling it.

[ QUOTE ]
Your conclusion points out exactly why theres a prolem with your defintion...you wind up in a situation where no compensation is "just", which is clearly untenable in a market based society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. All voluntary transactions are just; it's just the coercive transactions that end up being entirely unjust. This is exactly what one should expect from a market society.

None of this has anything to do with 'market value', which we could still talk about and calculate independently of of 'just' prices. The issue is that getting 'market value' for my house won't be just unless it's the price I'm asking for.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. All voluntary transactions are just; it's just the coercive transactions that end up being entirely unjust. This is exactly what one should expect from a market society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is this universally true: "all voluntary transactions are just"

There's a crapload of different definitions of justice in economics, you can't just pull one out of your back and state it like it's the truth.

Obviously it supports the market mechanism coz basically what it says is "the market mechanism is just"

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. All voluntary transactions are just; it's just the coercive transactions that end up being entirely unjust. This is exactly what one should expect from a market society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is this universally true: "all voluntary transactions are just"

There's a crapload of different definitions of justice in economics, you can't just pull one out of your back and state it like it's the truth.

Obviously it supports the market mechanism coz basically what it says is "the market mechanism is just"

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it the wrong way around. We want equality of justice so we must have voluntary interactions which usually result in capitalistic transaction (but doesn't rule out voluntary socialism). It's not we want the market mechanism therefore the market mechanism must be just. If you can point out objective injustices in voluntary transactions please do so.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got it the wrong way around. We want equality of justice so we must have voluntary interactions which usually result in capitalistic transaction (but doesn't rule out voluntary socialism).

[/ QUOTE ]

What does "equality of justice" even mean? Plus justice or fairness isn't necessarily connected to voluntary transactions.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not we want the market mechanism therefore the market mechanism must be just.

[/ QUOTE ]

When he stated that all voluntary transactions are just that's exactly what he was implying.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can point out objective injustices in voluntary transactions please do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever drawn an Edgeworth box in your life?