Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Governments right to take the property of it's people

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A not unreasonable question, but you should first ask: 1) should the government be providing roads and railways?

Assuming solely for the sake of argument that the answer is yes (and Objectivists would disagree with this!!) then I still believe it is wrong for government to do this. It's somewhat better if the government provides compensation, but even that is a sticky issue. They pay "fair market value" but the mere announcement of a possibility of seizing the property puts the title under a cloud and lowers the fair market value, so the government ends up getting the property at a discount anyway.

I happen to live in a state where private companies providing toll roads, power lines, etc. are allowed to use eminent domain to seize private property. If anything, that's even more obnoxious, and it so happens I've been under both the perceived and actual threat of this happening at times in the past.

The perceived time was when someone showed me an inaccurate map of the planned route of a power line going through my property--it was never the power company's intent to do so. Rather than going through my neighbor's property the power company ended up figuring out how to put more capacity in a right of way it already had (i.e., had previously seized).

The actual time was when I found myself in the twelve mile wide "corridor" within which a proposed toll road could be routed, and said corridor has been reduced to 3 miles wide and shifted well east of me (I think the road builder decided that going over the steep terrain immediately north of me was a bad idea for the railroad he wanted to put in the median). Which got me off the hook but everyone in that new corridor is screwed; their titles are under a cloud until this guy either builds the road and decides which particular 3/8ths mile strip of land he wants to seize (and it has been a vaporware project for 30 years already) or gives up his claim. Meanwhile this guy is wrecking the property rights of thousands of people for a business (operating via political pull) that may not even get started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Government have the right to take the property of it's people? For lines of communication such as roads and railways it is possible for the government to take the property off people to make way. They are paid for it but the point is they may not want to sell.

No, eminent domain laws are not justifiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, eminent domain laws are not justifiable.

"Eminent Domain Laws" do not only include the permission of the government to seize property, they also include prohibiting or limiting the governments power to seize property.

"Eminent Domain" however was used by the government to seize land from native americans to allow settlers the use of that land. Natives did not like the fact that settlers invaded hunting grounds and area that the native population used for cultivation. Therefore many tribes would attempt to fight off these settlers. The settlers would then forcefully take the land under the protection of government, or the government would kill, subdue or rforcefully relocate those tribes in area of interest and sell, or give, that land to settlers. This means, in order for settlers to make use of land, the government and citizens of that government felt "eminent domain" was justifiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying but if their wasn't seizure of property would wouldn't be able to build any roads at all. One guy in the corridor could demand an extortionate amount and the company would have to pay or abandon the whole project. I understand property rights are inviolate but then we would haven't roads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying but if their wasn't seizure of property would wouldn't be able to build any roads at all. One guy in the corridor could demand an extortionate amount and the company would have to pay or abandon the whole project. I understand property rights are inviolate but then we would haven't roads.

Private roads existed prior to government's usurption of that business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying but if their wasn't seizure of property would wouldn't be able to build any roads at all. One guy in the corridor could demand an extortionate amount and the company would have to pay or abandon the whole project. I understand property rights are inviolate but then we would haven't roads.

Ahhhh "The ends justify the means."

It's been a while since I have heard that old chestnut.

Clearly your assertion that "we wouldn't have roads" without eminent domain is spurious. The fact that roads existed (prior to the invention of a "right" for the collective to seize property from the individual) undoes your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh "The ends justify the means."

It's been a while since I have heard that old chestnut.

Clearly your assertion that "we wouldn't have roads" without eminent domain is spurious. The fact that roads existed (prior to the invention of a "right" for the collective to seize property from the individual) undoes your argument.

Yes but that's before people started to take the government and company's to court so they could just stick a road through their field. These days if you try to build a road you could buy up 50 of the 52 houses in the way before the last 2 houses decide they think the house is worth 3,4,5 times it's actual value. What choice does the company have but to pay these extortionate amounts or not finish the road. and if the amounts are truly extortionate they won't be able to pay. Tell me one place in the UK where you can build a road without going through someone property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what god made options for.

People who want to build roads can take out options on the property they want to buy--they pay the owner a small amount of money, well in advance, for the option to buy the land at a set price. If they do this over a wide enough area, chances are good they will have a continuous route. If not, they haven't spent nearly the money the would have spent if they chose to do it the silly way you seem to imagine they'd choose to use. But if so, they then exercise the options that they want simultaneously. No holdouts because people agreed to the sale long before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...