georgism broken record ad nausium

[FrankChodorov]

That property was literally stolen by the government.

and it was stolen before that too...

all sovereignty of territory in the plant and animal world is either initially taken by force (plant species literally encroach upon one another and crowd each other out) or maintaned by force.

[Michael Fisher]

"The common good" is Kantian philosophy.  Very dangerous.  And quite far removed from the philosophy of the founders which recognized individual inalienable rights, Frank.  You ought to know that.  I shouldn't have to tell you that, of all people.

Caleb

Incorrect. Kantian deontology may not be perfect, but it was completely opposed to consequentialism.

[FrankChodorov]

The left can do no wrong!

no rather Jane can do no wrong...

[Caleb]

Frank, individual rights shared in common is a far cry from "for the sake of the common good", and you know it.

If I have an individual right, shared in common, that means that my right exists so long as I am not harming someone else's right.

But if we change it to "for the sake of the common good", then it is no longer necessary to show that I am infringing on someone else's right.  All that must be done is to show that more people than not will benefit from obstructing my right.

[Russell Kanning]

If Caleb keeps arguing with Frank .... I will have to put him on ignore.

[Caleb]

That's a good idea, Russell.  I think you should do it. 

[FrankChodorov]

Frank, individual rights shared in common is a far cry from "for the sake of the common good", and you know it.

If I have an individual right, shared in common, that means that my right exists so long as I am not harming someone else's right.

But if we change it to "for the sake of the common good", then it is no longer necessary to show that I am infringing on someone else's right.  All that must be done is to show that more people than not will benefit from obstructing my right.

the reason why we allow enclosure of the commons for exclusive use via government granted privilege backed by force is because when people bring land under cultivation and can privately benefit from the fruits of their production the surplus that is created can then be shared via voluntary exchange with others...in otherwords it enhances the common good.

see Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice"

http://geolib.com/essays/paine.tom/agjst.html

otherwise what could possibly have been the justification for private use if the greater common good was served by keeping land in common???

the justification for taking land out of private use and back into common or collective use is because it can be shown to benefit the greater common good.

in the case of eminant domain you actually have to prove that it will do just that in a court of law.

[Spencer]

If something really benefits the "common good," then the common people will get together and come up with a price to pay the property owner that will persuade him to sell.  If the price is too high to be met by the common people, then the project is not cost-effective (and, therefore, not for the benefit of the "common good").

[John]

I think we can all agree that Eminent Domain is wrong and should never be used.

what is the philosophical justification for it?

The philosophical justification is that the king granted the right to the land to the landowner and could, therefore, nullify the grant at his whim.

wrong...the government grants a privilege of exclusive use because it enhances the common good.

the same justification is used when the privilege is withdrawn...because it enhances the common good.

OK, are we endorcing Fascism here?

[FrankChodorov]

I think we can all agree that Eminent Domain is wrong and should never be used.

what is the philosophical justification for it?

The philosophical justification is that the king granted the right to the land to the landowner and could, therefore, nullify the grant at his whim.

wrong...the government grants a privilege of exclusive use because it enhances the common good.

the same justification is used when the privilege is withdrawn...because it enhances the common good.

OK, are we endorcing Fascism here?

how so?

fascism is the merger of state and corporate interests that when mixed with religion creates an extreme form of theocratic nationalism...

[FrankChodorov]

If something really benefits the "common good," then the common people will get together and come up with a price to pay the property owner that will persuade him to sell.  If the price is too high to be met by the common people, then the project is not cost-effective (and, therefore, not for the benefit of the "common good").

why should they have to pay extortion prices rather than fair market value?

the whole Kelo problem could have been avoided by simply shifting taxation off of buildings and onto the full market value of land.

[CNHT]

If something really benefits the "common good," then the common people will get together and come up with a price to pay the property owner that will persuade him to sell.  If the price is too high to be met by the common people, then the project is not cost-effective (and, therefore, not for the benefit of the "common good").

why should they have to pay extortion prices rather than fair market value?

the whole Kelo problem could have been avoided by simply shifting taxation off of buildings and onto the full market value of land.

This proves that Bill doesn't get it. Susette had remodeled her house and loved it. She did not want market value for her land or anything else! She wanted to stay in her house, right where it was!

/ignore!

[FrankChodorov]

If something really benefits the "common good," then the common people will get together and come up with a price to pay the property owner that will persuade him to sell.  If the price is too high to be met by the common people, then the project is not cost-effective (and, therefore, not for the benefit of the "common good").

why should they have to pay extortion prices rather than fair market value?

the whole Kelo problem could have been avoided by simply shifting taxation off of buildings and onto the full market value of land.

This proves that Bill doesn't get it. Susette had remodeled her house and loved it. She did not want market value for her land or anything else! She wanted to stay in her house, right where it was!

and what you and others don't get here is that by not optomizing the socially created locational value that those lost opportunity costs are shifted (in the form of legal and monetary obligations) onto everyone that is being excluded by the privilege extended to Suzette Kelo...

privilege is nothing more than one great big huge costs shifting mechanism and what is sacrificed is the absolute property rights that we (those being excluded) all have to the products of our wages.

the privilege extended to exclusive use becomes a tax on the wages of those being excluded...

Suzette gets to move her house to another location...

[CNHT]

If something really benefits the "common good," then the common people will get together and come up with a price to pay the property owner that will persuade him to sell.  If the price is too high to be met by the common people, then the project is not cost-effective (and, therefore, not for the benefit of the "common good").

why should they have to pay extortion prices rather than fair market value?

the whole Kelo problem could have been avoided by simply shifting taxation off of buildings and onto the full market value of land.

This proves that Bill doesn't get it. Susette had remodeled her house and loved it. She did not want market value for her land or anything else! She wanted to stay in her house, right where it was!

and what you and others don't get here is that by not optomizing the socially created locational value that those lost opportunity costs are shifted (in the form of legal and monetary obligations) onto everyone that is being excluded by the privilege extended to Suzette Kelo...

privilege is nothing more than one great big huge costs shifting mechanism and what is sacrificed is the absolute property rights that we (those being excluded) all have to the products of our wages.

the privilege extended to exclusive use becomes a tax on the wages of those being excluded...

Suzette gets to move her house to another location...

She did not want to.
She was moved by force.

THAT IS NOT UPHOLDING FREEDOM or PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

[FrankChodorov]

She did not want to.
She was moved by force.

THAT IS NOT UPHOLDING FREEDOM or PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

not freedom Jane...EQUAL freedom!

and I am making the classical liberal argument that exclusive use of a specific location entitled via state granted privilege and not created via human labor and the private collection of the socially created locational value backed by STATE FORCE creates a legal and monetary obligation on those being excluded (a tax in kind but not in name).

the basis of private property is LABOR.

the unimproved land values that are the essence of the Kelo case (they argued that the increase in public revenue via property taxes paid by the private development IS equivalent to a public purpose) are NOT created by labor but rather are created SOCIALLY.