Roads and private property

[Mr. Wynand]

I live near Seattle where Interstate 5 (I-5) was originally made for military purposes during the Cold War. In making the freeway, the government destroyed whole neighborhoods and gave the owners . The constitution says that property cannot be taken unless with "just compensation." First of all, is this really a full respect of property rights under the Objectivist philosophy? And would the military have the right to build the road due to it's legitimacy (under objectivism) while destroying property rights?

[DavidOdden]

The constitution says that property cannot be taken unless with "just compensation." First of all, is this really a full respect of property rights under the Objectivist philosophy?

The alternative would be that the government could never take property under any circumstances. That seems attractive, yet wrong. In general, the government should not use force against innocent people. Yet sometimes, when someone initiates force, the job of the government is to use force in retaliation, and it is unavoidable that an innocent person is the victim. The moral responsibility for this is the initiator of force, not the government. Only extreme emergencies of national defense can justify takings.

Now I don't know why you think that I-5 was built for military purposes, so I think your example is a bit off. More plausible would be the Bangor Trident base. I do not see the need in that case as being so crucial to the existence of the nation that it justifies the government violating property rights rather than negotiating with landowners and offering a financial incentive.

[Mr. Wynand]

The alternative would be that the government could never take property under any circumstances. That seems attractive, yet wrong. In general, the government should not use force against innocent people. Yet sometimes, when someone initiates force, the job of the government is to use force in retaliation, and it is unavoidable that an innocent person is the victim. The moral responsibility for this is the initiator of force, not the government. Only extreme emergencies of national defense can justify takings.

Now I don't know why you think that I-5 was built for military purposes, so I think your example is a bit off. More plausible would be the Bangor Trident base. I do not see the need in that case as being so crucial to the existence of the nation that it justifies the government violating property rights rather than negotiating with landowners and offering a financial incentive.

Sorry, made a mistake. My history teacher told me that. I should have done my own research.

[SD26]

Sorry, made a mistake. My history teacher told me that. I should have done my own research.

Well, I'll help with a little redirect.

General Eisenhower lead US and other Allied forces into Germany during WWII. Something that amazed him was the German road system. It had commerce as it's primary purpose, but it's additional purpose was in its ability to allow for large air craft to land and take off from it. So, there is language in Interstate road construction that requires areas of straight sections for this purpose. Additionally, one could move troops and equipment quickly via this system. Or evacuate people from areas.

Wikipedia is even pretty useful for info on this...

Now, as for "just compensation"...

I cannot say that I know what prices were paid to land owners, but they were paid. Certainly, the Eisenhower Interstate System is a valuable part of commerce inside and between states. I've done a good deal of travel, and there are times where it's more efficient for me to drive rather than go to an airport, park, go through all the processes of getting on a plane, fly, get baggage, get a car from a remote lot and then get to a final destination.