Kelo v. City of New London,

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,918
1,231
Pretty much the position I got to.

I probably agree with Tom on the majority of these issues but dealing with the tendentious bullshit isn't worth the bother.

FKT
DFW_Sailor made a sweeping generalization when he said "In my mind a true libertarian has no compulsion to do anything they do not want to at all." 

Tom is also libertarianish.  And, as such, said "here's something that I believe it.  Do you believe in it?"  DFW then tried again to deflect to justify his particular view of what a "Pure Libertarian" really is, as opposed to arguing with an actual libertarian point of view.  He got his pet rage pinata out and, in typical PA fashion, flailed away.  To which, Tom tried to bring him back again "This is what I, and some other Libertarians, believe in - Do you agree or disagree with THIS POINT?".

Tom is only tedious because people won't back off their strawmen.  Its easier to argue with 'those people' than an actual position.  PA doesn't have to be a binary world unless we want it to be that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
Tom is also libertarianish.
That name seems to trigger people so I've been thinking of just going with nutjobish. OK, I'm a nutjob, why are nutjobs wrong? It still won't be answered, but at least the answer won't be, "You're not a nutjob!"

Its easier to argue with 'those people' than an actual position. 
But apparently less fun for most. You're an exception to that rule, so here's something that might interest you, if not the rest.

Balancing Justice Needs and Private Property in Constitutional Takings Provisions: A Comparative Assessment of India, Australia, and the United States

Where we have Kelo and her former pink house, Aussies have the fictional Daryl Kerrigan and the real Graham French.

I thought it kind of funny that no one really seems to remember how/why the Aussie government got the power of compulsory acquisition back in 1901. It's a power of sovereigns, who live back in the UK, and they seem to have just wanted to clarify that it was delegated.

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,918
1,231
I'll read it - thank you.

I said "Libertarianish" because I don't know i you're actually a libertarian or just play one on TV.  I'm currently a registered democrat FWIW but I vote for whomever I think will do the best job, based on what I know at the time.

As a party, I think the Libertarians are kind of an oxymoron.  There is JUST enough of them to end up on ballots but not enough of them to make an impact, so the Libertarian party has become a defacto place keeper for populist candidates.  It serves a purpose and makes a convenient scapegoat.  That being said, I have voted for Libertarian candidates in the past and I'm glad it exists.  More choice is better than less choice.  But it tends to be more practical at the state level than the national level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
I said "Libertarianish" because I don't know i you're actually a libertarian or just play one on TV.  I'm currently a registered democrat FWIW but I vote for whomever I think will do the best job, based on what I know at the time.
Well, my voter registration says I'm one, but I think it would be way funnier if it said "nutjob" under party affiliation. Not sure if that's allowed.

I'm not very involved with the party because those nutjobs think I'm too much of a statist. Really, they do.

 

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,418
551
DFW
I'm not sure anything can exist in a pure libertarian society, but I'll at least try with our society.

A society can't functionally exist without eminent domain and no one I've seen is advocating that, so that would be a position you want to argue against, but which no one has actually taken. There's a word for it but I can't think of it.

So you could bring an argument against a position actually taken, such as the position that taking Kelo's house was (right/wrong).

I think it was wrong because public use does not mean public purpose, it means public use. Don't know how to make that more concise or less tendentious.
I was abrupt because of recent (12 months?) experience dealing with a significant number of people who i cannot avoid, who are using any label they wish that could possibly be of support to the 'fuck you, i'm ok' attitude - until they fall on hard economic or health issues and then beg like slimy snakes. Many of them fall back to being 'libertarian' as their guiding philosophy because it seems a convenient argument for them..

At which point I really try to bring them back to some basics - real life hypotheticals that can and will happen, and try and get them to process through the implications. I understand that is not you.

So, regarding Kelo. Everything is wrong about kelo, but that is the fault of the mechanism, not the need for eminent domain. So why is the mechanism wrong? Vested interests, which exist in every freaken jurisdiction in the US. 

I'm tired of 'woe is me' when the claimant has not previously been interested in local politics. Politics doesn't just happen. Politicians will only be as responsive as the electorate demands.  

So to me there is not much point in going through the issues of Kelo because it is super localized to whatever political cabal has established itself for that area, and what the citizens are or are not doing to root out the cabal. Unfortunately from what I have seen there is really no option in a lot of situations but to cut and run.

Ideally, the mechanism would use eminent domain as a last resort, and the mechanism would have to pay a premium above market value for the inconvenience of compulsory acquisition. Once purchased, the property's community end use development of the property would then be assigned via tender / rfp / auction to the best bidder, and the declared end use of the property would have to be guaranteed for a lengthy period e.g. 20 years before it could possibly be used (or sold) for different uses in the future.

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
9,852
3,119
Tasmania, Australia
Ideally, the mechanism would use eminent domain as a last resort, and the mechanism would have to pay a premium above market value for the inconvenience of compulsory acquisition. Once purchased, the property's community end use development of the property would then be assigned via tender / rfp / auction to the best bidder, and the declared end use of the property would have to be guaranteed for a lengthy period e.g. 20 years before it could possibly be used (or sold) for different uses in the future.
I said that waaay back in this thread and Tom was against it on the grounds that it would be gamed.

Of course it would be gamed, if it could be.

But  - just like his incessant whining over a stupid 22LR, does he propose anything like a solution? Of course not, he just keeps on whining.

What Tom wants is things like eminent domain to be outright banned but he won't say that.

Of course he could show that I'm wrong by listing the changes he thinks should be made to the eminent domain process, but I'd be amazed if he actually did that.

So while I actually agree with him on this abuse and I also agree with him on most of the other abuses he posts (qualified immunity being an absolute classic of an authorised wrong IMO) in the end he's just boring.

FKT

 

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,418
551
DFW
I said that waaay back in this thread and Tom was against it on the grounds that it would be gamed.

Of course it would be gamed, if it could be.
Tom seems to hate hypotheticals, but one of my wishes would be for all politicians and lawmakers attend a primer on how to run hypotheticals al la Geoffrey Robertson. The low quality, short sighted lawmaking at US state and country level astounds me. 

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
9,852
3,119
Tasmania, Australia
Tom seems to hate hypotheticals, but one of my wishes would be for all politicians and lawmakers attend a primer on how to run hypotheticals al la Geoffrey Robertson. The low quality, short sighted lawmaking at US state and country level astounds me. 
Yeah. And everything proposed should go to a B team whose job was to find & exploit every single loophole & ambiguity before it gets to 'go live'.

That would save a hell of a lot of patches but the B team would become incredibly unpopular instantly when they destroyed pet ideas.

Had a programmer tell me once we didn't need to code for a certain event because that event couldn't happen - so I got one of my electronics engineers to ensure that it did.

Then told the programmer to stop being so fucking lazy & arrogant and FIX IT.

That's what needs to be done to proposed laws before they get implemented.

And BTW the low quality, short-sighted lawmaking is in no way restricted to the USA, as you'll find out if you come home to live. COVID has brought out the worst of the heartless stupidity currently.

FKT

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
I said that waaay back in this thread and Tom was against it on the grounds that it would be gamed.

Of course it would be gamed, if it could be.

But  - just like his incessant whining over a stupid 22LR, does he propose anything like a solution? Of course not, he just keeps on whining.

What Tom wants is things like eminent domain to be outright banned but he won't say that.
Actually, I propose fair market value vs a premium, which is at least something like a solution.

When considering eminent domain, as with any other issue, it's important to recognize that I sometimes say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion.

Your mind reading is way off. I say what I mean and can actually do it under my real name. You make shit up and can't.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
So, regarding Kelo. Everything is wrong about kelo, but that is the fault of the mechanism, not the need for eminent domain. So why is the mechanism wrong? Vested interests, which exist in every freaken jurisdiction in the US. 
That doesn't make eminent domain wrong, and again, I'm not in favor of abolishing it, despite various claims by people who don't know much about me.

I think you're mistaken about the why. As I said, it's public purpose vs public use.

Most anything can be a public purpose, something very convenient for the "vested interests" of whom you speak. In the topic case, enhancing the tax base was a public purpose. In the Jones Beach case, negro removal was the public purpose. Can be anything.

Public USE seems much more narrow to me, and would shear away lots of those vested interests.

You can't get rid of vested interests, but changing the rules under which they can grab property can help.

Is it for something that someone can argue is a "public use?" No eminent domain for you!

 Is it something the public actually uses, like a road? Yes, eminent domain is appropriate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
So, regarding Kelo. Everything is wrong about kelo
I'd just add that at least two things were not wrong:

The nutjobs who brought the case were not wrong. They're wrong to call themselves libertarians when you know better, but if we just agree to call them nutjobs, that objection goes away. On the issue of the case, buyingback Kelo's house, they were right.

Also right, at least almost completely, Justice Thomas. His dissent is not a whole lot longer than your word count in this thread and is, no offense, a lot more worth reading.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .
Never thought I'd see it, but I think we actually have competition in the "most ignorant post about eminent domain" category.

learningJ24 said:
Except the court is leaning in a reactionary activist direction; money is speech, guns are an individual right, Roe is not settled precedent, imminent domain for private development
Frank James had 5 years to figure out who supported buyingback Kelo's house and why and failed.

Learning has had a lot more time and also failed and has "learning" in his screen name, giving him the edge in my book.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
Ideally, the mechanism would use eminent domain as a last resort, and the mechanism would have to pay a premium above market value for the inconvenience of compulsory acquisition.
If inconvenience should be compensated, how about breaking a spiritual bond?

From the article above:
 

...

[SIZE=19.2px]And recent judicial authority suggests that[/SIZE][SIZE=19.2px] this definition of property may include a “spiritual connection” to land[/SIZE][SIZE=19.2px] as part of native title held by Australian Aborig[/SIZE]inal and Torres Strait[SIZE=19.2px] Islander peoples.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=19.2px]...[/SIZE]
What's a fair premium for obliterating cultural heritage?

 

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,418
551
DFW
If inconvenience should be compensated, how about breaking a spiritual bond?

From the article above:
 

What's a fair premium for obliterating cultural heritage?
I look forward to your recommended solution. Perhaps you should review tribal law first, then the mabo case, then how western law can /could mesh with tribal principles etc.

It's a challenge when  one religious philosophy (dreamtime = mostly all encompassing / all enveloping / indistinguishable from nature, richness is oneness with nature) collides with protestantism and the focus on personal property.

In other words, I see your raise from shitty local bastardization of eminent domain to tribal belief issue on another continent; and I raise it again to  the level of incompatibility of 2 different legal systems based on entirely different life value propositions.

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
9,852
3,119
Tasmania, Australia
I look forward to your recommended solution. Perhaps you should review tribal law first, then the mabo case, then how western law can /could mesh with tribal principles etc.

It's a challenge when  one religious philosophy (dreamtime = mostly all encompassing / all enveloping / indistinguishable from nature, richness is oneness with nature) collides with protestantism and the focus on personal property.

In other words, I see your raise from shitty local bastardization of eminent domain to tribal belief issue on another continent; and I raise it again to  the level of incompatibility of 2 different legal systems based on entirely different life value propositions.
Has Tom actually proposed anything definitive WRT eminent domain, how it can be used with heavy restrictions on abuse, and how people can be properly compensated for the confiscation of their property?

No?

Wake me when he does. Until then - I have a boat to play with.

FKT

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,543
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
I look forward to your recommended solution.
OK, but you could as easily look upthread.

Has Tom actually proposed anything definitive WRT eminent domain, how it can be used with heavy restrictions on abuse, and how people can be properly compensated for the confiscation of their property?

No?
Readers would know. Of course, they might have also figured out that I would not abolish eminent domain and am not secretly hiding that desire, as you wrongly guessed.

There have been changes in process in some areas in response to Kelo, but no change in process can change a court precedent.

The problem is not process at all, it's interpretation.

Does "public use" mean "public use" or does it mean the much broader "public purpose?"

I agree with Justice Thomas that it means "public use" but the majority disagreed.

We fix those kinds of problems by constitutional amendment or by the Supreme Court reversing itself.

I don't think an amendment is needed. "Public use" seems fine to me.

So that leaves one way to change it: SCOTUS reversal.

Now that I've once again spelled out the problem and solution, let's hear your solutions?

Oh, wait, I remember now, you only ask for those from others and never offer one yourself.

 
Top