Thread: The most pertentious SCOTUS decision since Dred Scot came down yesterday.

Originally Posted by Confed999

...Really doen't mater what the motivation is.

It matters in the context (of the argument) that this is an example of socialism. This is not a case of taking private property and making it public. It's a case of transferring private property to a wealthier owner who will return more money to the government, and increase his own wealth at the expense of the rightful owner.

I'm not saying it's not wrong, it clearly is wrong. I'm just saying it isn't socialism, since the intent is only to make more money. The beneficiaries are the government and the corporation, and the victim is the little guy who can't afford to "fight city hall".

Sure, the liberals like it because it gives the government more money and more control. I agree. Even so, I can't call it socialism because it doesn't redistribute the wealth to the less fortunate, it does the opposite.

Originally Posted by highsea

This is not a case of taking private property and making it public.

You're right, it's a case of taking all private property and making it government property. Even the corporations aren't safe.

Originally Posted by highsea

the victim is the little guy who can't afford to "fight city hall".

There is no fight now though. One cannot even force them to prove a public use, as all uses have been made public.

Originally Posted by highsea

Even so, I can't call it socialism because it doesn't redistribute the wealth to the less fortunate, it does the opposite.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Just because we're not all the way to socialism, doesn't mean this isn't a socialist policy...

Originally Posted by Confed999

Just because we're not all the way to socialism, doesn't mean this isn't a socialist policy...

Nevertheless, you haven't shown me how this is either:

1. advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (a person's home or business is not "goods" in this context, nor is the government administering it- they are simply transferring ownership to a third party who will pay higher taxes- a despicable act, but not within the definition of socialism- i.e. there is no collective ownership)

2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state (the property is not reverting to the state, it is staying in private ownership)

3. an unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (it has nothing to work being done, but percieved potential value of the property, and resultant tax revenues)

Just as a side note, when someone quotes dictionary definitions, that is a rather derogatory way of making a point. "I been to skool", thank you.

If you can show that the beneficiaries of the policy are the lower classes, that the additional revenues generated are directed to the poor or minorities, etc, then I will concede it is a socialistic policy. So far, all I see is government greed at work. Fact- this would not be an issue if there were not higher tax revenues at stake.

Originally Posted by highsea

Nevertheless, you haven't shown me how this is either:

1. advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The government now has control over the land. They decide what will be done on their land. Thus, control of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Originally Posted by highsea

2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

Got that right now. All you're doing is renting from the government. If someone comes along willing to pay more rent, you're out. Worse, they could do it just because they don't like you.

Originally Posted by highsea

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

The land the production takes place on is owned by the government.

Originally Posted by highsea

3. an unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Actually has nothing to do with this situation.

Originally Posted by highsea

Just as a side note, when someone quotes dictionary definitions

I was trying to find where socialism was actually for anyone but the government, which is why I quoted what I did: "Even so, I can't call it socialism because it doesn't redistribute the wealth to the less fortunate, it does the opposite." I guess you learned a different definition in "skool"...

Originally Posted by highsea

If you can show that the beneficiaries of the policy are the lower classes, that the additional revenues generated are directed to the poor or minorities, etc, then I will concede it is a socialistic policy.

You live in a community that has no locally funded social programs for the poor and such?

Edit: And why worry about that anyway, the poor can simply be forced to relocate out of town.

Originally Posted by highsea

Fact- this would not be an issue if there were not higher tax revenues at stake.

Probably, but power is a good motivator too. I'm sure all motivations will be represented.

Well, I live where such an occurance is unlikely. HOWEVER, WHEN THAT DAY COMES I will be barricaded in my house with gas mask, food, water, and ammunition. Yes, I know that I shall lose any such confrontation, Yes, I know this almost certanly means my own death. If the constitution is worth the lives of our servicemen (& women), then it is worth dying for at 901 Franklin Avenue! When the day comes that the local government must kill citizens, who only wished to be left alone, in order to generate greater revenue (& God knows how many under the table payoffs!), that is the day I choose to die.
I wonder how many of the bastards I'll get before they get me? (I'm hoping for at least three.)

Originally Posted by Confed999

The government now has control over the land. They decide what will be done on their land. Thus, control of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Got that right now. All you're doing is renting from the government. If someone comes along willing to pay more rent, you're out. Worse, they could do it just because they don't like you.

The land the production takes place on is owned by the government.

You keep saying that the government owns the land. I see nothing in the decision that says the land becomes government property, or that they are entitled to collect rent from the occupants. The decision says that a private corporation or individual can excercize Eminent Domain and take ownership of the property because the local government or community may benefit financially from it.

The right of the government to take property for the public good- Of course there is an element of socialism inherent to the concept. The government does need to be able to build roads, dams, bridges, airports, wastewater treatment facilities, etc.

Allowing private parties and corporations Eminent Domain usurps this power, but not by making it more socialistic, but more capitalistic. There is no collective ownership involved. We can agree that Eminent Domain is a socialistic practice. I am simply arguing that extending it to private parties injects capitalism into the device, and that is where it treads on the rights of the individual, because it places a monetary value on those rights. It equates the well being of the private corporation to the well being of the public at large. This is anathema to socialism.

Originally Posted by Confed999

You live in a community that has no locally funded social programs for the poor and such?

All communities have social programs, but you haven't shown that the proceeds from this decision will create additional ones. How do you know they aren't just going into the general fund to pay for the normal activities of the government, such things as roads, water and sewer projects, trips to vegas for city councilmen, drunken nights on the town with strippers, etc?

I am not supporting the decision, I just don't call it socialism. I call it a tax increase paid for by stealing the property from people who are not equipped to to defend themselves against the government and corporate lawyers.

Originally Posted by highsea

You keep saying that the government owns the land.

Yes, they can seize the property for any purpose they see fit.

Originally Posted by highsea

or that they are entitled to collect rent from the occupants.

Property tax, the main point of this.

Originally Posted by highsea

The right of the government to take property for the public good- Of course there is an element of socialism inherent to the concept.

Certainly, but before there was the requirement to use the land for an actual public use. Bad, but not as bad.

Originally Posted by highsea

Allowing private parties and corporations Eminent Domain usurps this power

Where does this give them that power? It gives the government the power.

Originally Posted by highsea

All communities have social programs, but you haven't shown that the proceeds from this decision will create additional ones.

You haven't shown it won't. Freeing up monies in one place for another, it really doesn't matter what they say it is "for" today, it all comes from our pockets. I still don't see where socialism has anything to do with the poor.

Originally Posted by highsea

I just don't call it socialism.

I do, it's government control. The anathema to capitalism.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Yes, they can seize the property for any purpose they see fit.

Jeebus Christ! If it were a case of the government seizing property, it would have never gone to court. They can already do that.

Repeat after me...They are not seizing property. They are empowering a private corporation to do that. The ownership stays private hands. What they are doing is closer to acting as real estate brokers, and they are motivated by money, like any other real estate broker. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Originally Posted by Confed999

Property tax, the main point of this.

Precisely. It's about money. moolah. dineros. More profits from the land means more revenues for the taxman. Government greed, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Certainly, but before there was the requirement to use the land for an actual public use. Bad, but not as bad.

Agreed, that was my point. Eminent Domain must be done for the public good, not the benefit of a private corporation.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Where does this give them that power? It gives the government the power.

Read it again:

The case came from New London, Conn., where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenue and has empowered a private entity, New London Development Corp., to exercise the awesome power of eminent domain.

Originally Posted by Confed999

You haven't shown it won't. Freeing up monies in one place for another, it really doesn't matter what they say it is "for" today, it all comes from our pockets.

I don't have to show that it won't. I'm not the one saying the motivation is socialism. I am simply saying it's a tax increase disguised as something that benefits the community. You are the one that implied that the revenues would go to social programs.

Originally Posted by Confed999

I do, it's government control. The anathema to capitalism.

You call everything under gov't control socialism? What about law enforcement, the military, the FAA, these are all examples of socialism?

Originally Posted by highsea

If it were a case of the government seizing property, it would have never gone to court. They can already do that.

But only for specific purposes, not for any purpose they see fit.

Originally Posted by highsea

Repeat after me...They are not seizing property. They are empowering a private corporation to do that.

"They are empowering", is the key. The power came from the government.

Originally Posted by highsea

What they are doing is closer to acting as real estate brokers, and they are motivated by money, like any other real estate broker. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

It's the government doing it, why is that so difficult to grasp? LOL

Originally Posted by highsea

It's about money. moolah. dineros. More profits from the land means more revenues for the taxman. Government greed, pure and simple.

Never disagreed with that assessment.

Originally Posted by highsea

Read it again:

"where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenue and has empowered"... Again, government did it, and I can't fault a company for playing by the rules the government sets.

Originally Posted by highsea

I don't have to show that it won't.

And I don't have to show it will, to prove government control of private property, a socialistic policy.

Originally Posted by highsea

You are the one that implied that the revenues would go to social programs.

No I didn't, you said it had to be wealth redistribution to the poor to be socialist! I said it will fund the local governments, and they fund social programs, thus it is funding social programs. I also said I don't know what the poor have to do with socialism.

Originally Posted by highsea

You call everything under gov't control socialism? What about law enforcement, the military, the FAA, these are all examples of socialism?

Government control over something besides defence of the rights of it's people is socialist.

Originally Posted by Confed999

But only for specific purposes, not for any purpose they see fit.

No doubt. But when you say "for any purpose they see fit", you misrepresent the issue. The purpose here is "economic development". A lower-middle class residential neighborhood is to be destroyed to make room for a shiny new development. The ruling specifically addresses the question, "Does Eminent Domain extend to economic development?"

Let's be honest, economic development means capitalism, and injecting it into a socialistic device like Eminent Domain actually corrupts it. Property rights for the wealthy. F*ck the little guy.

Originally Posted by Confed999

"They are empowering", is the key. The power came from the government.

Yes, but the government is empowered by the people. They do not (or at least should not) have the right to assign that power to a private entity.

Originally Posted by Confed999

"where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenue and has empowered"... Again, government did it, and I can't fault a company for playing by the rules the government sets.

I can't fault the company either, but we both know it was the company that pressured the local government for the power. I can only fault the local gov't for buckling under and surrendering the rights of the individual to be secure in his property.

But the motive is clearly money, the local gov't is after tax revenues, plain and simple.

One good thing that has come of this is that there are a lot of States revisiting their Eminent Domain laws. I have a feeling that the people are going to take back some of the power they have entrusted to the gov't.

Originally Posted by highsea

No doubt. But when you say "for any purpose they see fit", you misrepresent the issue. The purpose here is "economic development".

But any excuse can be used with this as a precident. With the economic development angle they could kick out a billionaire because he has a homestead exemption on his property.

Originally Posted by highsea

Let's be honest, economic development means capitalism

So socialists and communists don't care about economic development?

Originally Posted by highsea

Property rights for the wealthy.

Except even the wealthy are not safe, there's allways someone willing to pay more.

Originally Posted by highsea

Yes, but the government is empowered by the people. They do not have the right to assign that power to a private entity.

I know, because it takes private property rights away.

Originally Posted by highsea

But the motive is clearly money, the local gov't is after tax revenues, plain and simple.

Yep, again, never said it wasn't.

Originally Posted by highsea

One good thing that has come of this is that there are a lot of States revisiting their Eminent Domain laws.

Yep, now your only hope is that local government will move to defend your right to be secure in your property.

Originally Posted by Confed999

But any excuse can be used with this as a precident. With the economic development angle they could kick out a billionaire because he has a homestead exemption on his property.

So you say, but at least the billionaire can afford to fight them in court. The forklift driver doesn't have the money. I have a little trouble believing that any billionaires's "homestead" will be threatened by this.

Originally Posted by Confed999

So socialists and communists don't care about economic development?

You are trying to twist meanings here. The economic development under discussion is private property development.

If I am a property developer, I know will make a lot more money on my development if I can get the land at fire sale prices. So first, I convince the city planners that under my plan their tax revenues will go up. My houses will be worth $500,000, and the houses I am tearing down are only worth $50,000. I will put in a shopping center, whatever. Their tax revenues go up ten-fold, and they don't have to raise the tax rate. This is what they like to hear.

They agree, and condemn the property, and I buy it cheap and build my new houses and shopping centers, which I then sell for more than I have invested.

I bought low and sold high. I used my own capital to generate profits. Is this not capitalism? I used Eminent Domain as a mechanism for buying low, which made it an integral part of my scheme. The beneficiaries are myself and the local government, not the general public, so I have succeeded in corrupting Eminent Domain with my profit motive (capitalism).

This doesn't work in socialism, because if the State owns the property, I cannot sell it for a profit.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Yep, now your only hope is that local government will move to defend your right to be secure in your property.

That hope doesn't apply to me, I live in Seattle. Our rights have already been taken away by the environmentalists.

At any rate, this topic is getting tiresome. I have made my points as well as I am likely to, so I wll bow out gracefully.

Originally Posted by highsea

So you say, but at least the billionaire can afford to fight them in court.

Economic development has allready been upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe when there are a few less of those who voted for it, they'll review the issue again.

Originally Posted by highsea

You are trying to twist meanings here. The economic development under discussion is private property development.

No, one is connected to the other. Plus it isn't really private property, as the first time someone is willing to pay, the property isn't theirs anymore.

Originally Posted by highsea

Their tax revenues go up ten-fold, and they don't have to raise the tax rate. This is what they like to hear.

They agree, and condemn the property, and I buy it cheap and build my new houses and shopping centers, which I then sell for more than I have invested.

Yep, I understand how it works.

Originally Posted by highsea

Is this not capitalism?

No, it uses government power to take the rights of others. Government doesn't have that power in actual capitalism.

Originally Posted by highsea

This doesn't work in socialism, because if the State owns the property, I cannot sell it for a profit.

Like I said before, just because we aren't totaly socialist, doesn't mean this isn't a socialist policy.

Originally Posted by highsea

I have made my points as well as I am likely to, so I wll bow out gracefully.

Whatever, I still don't see how you can miss the government's control over the entire situation.