If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Remember when New London took those homes and the Supreme Court said it was OK because they had this great development plan worked out with Pfizer...? Yeah, it didn't quite work out   (online.wsj.com) divider line 437
    More: Fail, Pfizer, City of New London, development plans, supreme court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, research and development, supreme court justices, pass laws  
•       •       •

32436 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2009 at 1:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



437 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-11 03:01:41 PM
Debeo Summa Credo: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Eminent domain is absolutely necessary in at least some circumstances, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

I disagree with that. Theft is wrong, whether it is done through government or private actors.

Guess I'm not a reasonable person.

Yeah, I don't know. I kind of like highways. They're so convenient, you know, for traveling and transporting goods.


So without eminent domain, there would be no highways? Great argument.

The majority couldn't possibly offer people terms they were voluntarily willing to accept for their property, no, that would be too difficult. We'll just violently steal their homes, bulldoze them, and pay them peanuts in compensation, that's moral.
 
2009-11-11 03:01:52 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I also find it silly to equate a law protective of individual rights with a law curtailing individual rights under the theory that all laws are somehow equal in validity or justification.

Private property rights are subject to the government's ability to take that property with reasonable compensation and due process. And they always have been.

Just because you think they are handed down by the great capitalist Jesus in the sky or whatever doesn't make it so.
 
2009-11-11 03:02:49 PM
If this issue ever comes up again (which I doubt it will) this situation will be used as ammo against eminent domain for purely economic reasons. Which is a good thing. I guess we can take solace in that fact.
 
2009-11-11 03:03:20 PM
Hmmm... Seems the Murdoch-owned Journal is having trouble deciding between his pro-business and populist outrage agendas.
 
2009-11-11 03:03:52 PM
I have a friend who lost his bowling alley to eminent domain for an overflow parking lot to a big hotel, so now it sits empty every day of the year accept at Christmas time, and the amount he had to settle for in no way comes close to a lifetime of income for his family and heirs.
 
2009-11-11 03:04:02 PM
There is a shopping center in my town that was built on land unfairly seized through eminent domain.

I drive past it several times a day, but have never shopped there, and never will.

In fact there are a few stores there that I would like to shop at, but I instead go to similar stores in a different town. I have written letters to all the franchises which exist there, and have taken to boycotting all their chain stores.

Find out where eminent domain has taken place in your town, boycott those businesses and tell them why.
 
2009-11-11 03:04:02 PM
Red Shirt Blues: For:

Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

Against:

O'Connor
Thomas
Scalia
Rehnquist


I kind of thought this was a good post.

Where do you think Sodamayor would be?
 
2009-11-11 03:04:36 PM
yakmans_dad: Spade: yakmans_dad:
///No righties objected to FARKING GEORGE BUSH getting the land for the Texas FARKING Rangers.
.


Yes, none did. Ever.

In related news, all black people steal televisions and all germans are nazis.

Well, you see: the righties here are objecting to Kelo. Not to George Bush. What's a fellow supposed to think? Are you objecting to George Bush's acquisition of the land for the Rangers?


I am against the use of eminent domain whenever it is used to seize property from one private entity and turned over to another private entity. I don't give a shiate if it is George Bush or Wal Mart. this is just using the force of government as your private police force, and it is always wrong.
So yes, I am objecting to George Bush's acquisition of the land for the Rangers.
 
2009-11-11 03:04:36 PM
ArgusRun: Hmmm... Seems the Murdoch-owned Journal is having trouble deciding between his pro-business and populist outrage agendas.

They got tickets to the Rangers games.
 
2009-11-11 03:05:13 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: yakmans_dad: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: yakmans_dad: Private Property is theft.

/No. You're not.

Theft from whom, the human collective hive mind? The Earth Mother?

Who gave it to you? Ayn Rand?

Ah, an internet philosopher. Please tell me how you justify the dwelling you sit in and the computer you type upon when there are people homeless and starving if private property is truly "theft" as you claim it is. Shouldn't they have equal use of all of your fraudulently obtained "possessions"?

The less economically obtuse among us realize that private property is necessary for a functioning society because of tragedy of the commons scenarios which would reduce our society to rubble if private property were abolished.


Dude you can't argue with fanatics, you can only give them another cause to fight for or shot them. Reasoning with them is a waste.
 
2009-11-11 03:05:21 PM
Transubstantive: If this issue ever comes up again (which I doubt it will) this situation will be used as ammo against eminent domain for purely economic reasons. Which is a good thing. I guess we can take solace in that fact.

Yes and it looks like the most injured party really was the locality forcing the issue. Classic.
 
2009-11-11 03:05:36 PM
Nabb1: I Said: I'm incredibly happy to hear that New London is getting ass f*cked in all this.

It still sucks for the people that were forced out of their homes, though. Maybe even moreso because nothing positive at all has come of it.


well, one positive thing that came out of this clusterfark is that states and cities passed law to make this HARDER to happen in their own backyards.

what a bunch of farktards
 
2009-11-11 03:05:39 PM
sboyle1020: hsg: TheIndependent: point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

Good point - there isn't a group of human beings working together that can ever be totally trusted, from HOAs to banks to the boy scouts. For me, it comes down to motive - a government may have individuals within it that are corrupt and self serving, but it's overall mission is to keep society from collapsing. A modern corporation's entire raison d'etre is to profit as much as it can, whatever it takes, without any concern for morality. Hell, they can be sued by their shareholders if they *don't* do anything and everything to make money.

Soup kitchens...I think soup kitchens can be totally trusted.


I don't know; what if the person running the soup kitchen takes $.75 of every $1.00 off the top as a salary and uses only the remainder to run the actual soup kitchen.
 
2009-11-11 03:05:45 PM
Oznog: demonfaerie: This thing that is happened in New London my mom is afraid is going to happen in our backyard. There is this developer that is buying lots behind our house, and since the railroad track is closed now he is buying more up and is trying to buy my grandmother's lot as well. I have no idea what he is going to do, but my mom and my gram are afraid that he is going to develop condos or apartments in our backyard. I hope it doesn't happen the lot is connected to our backyards so we be very crammed not to mention the foxes, and deer will have no where to go.

Get to know your senators, as well as local/state govt reps.
Check state laws. 43 states HAVE made ED seizures on behalf of private enterprise illegal. This sort of use of ED was NOT ruled an obligation of the govt, SCOTUS just said it is constitutional. The legislative and executive branch don't HAVE to do it. The executive can simply decline to use it. The legislative branch can declare it illegal and then the executive can't, regardless of what SCOTUS said.


I do know one of our city council members, he said by the time they were going to do anything in our backyard is in the next 15-20 years and by that time he is will be out. He hates the local govt so much here. There is no reason so develop in such a crunched in housing area we have, since Menard is building tons of housing a few miles away. I should also add the devloper is buying out houses if they have a certain amount of land too, and is renting the houses and is still stocking up on land.
 
2009-11-11 03:05:58 PM
gilgigamesh: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I also find it silly to equate a law protective of individual rights with a law curtailing individual rights under the theory that all laws are somehow equal in validity or justification.

Private property rights are subject to the government's ability to take that property with reasonable compensation and due process. And they always have been.

Just because you think they are handed down by the great capitalist Jesus in the sky or whatever doesn't make it so.


Not religious, nice shot in the dark.

Although I do find your unwavering faith in "The Constitution" and its supposedly eternal inviolable principles as some kind of religious canon to be hypocritical.
 
2009-11-11 03:06:00 PM
Kyosuke: Make fun of Texas if you must, but we did add this nice little amendment to our laws last election:

HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use ("eminent domain") is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.

That shiat ain't goin' down here.


FALSE. I'm sorry- I saw HJR 14 and it's so far from the description on the ballot it's absolute fraud. HJR 14 actually says they CAN take ANYTHING of yours and hand it over to private enterprise.
Check the actual law approved:
Sec. 17. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged,
or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate
compensation being made
, unless by the consent of such person, and
only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:
(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property,
notwithstanding an incidental use, by:
(A) the State, a political subdivision of the
State, or the public at large; or
(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain
under law; or
(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular
parcel of property.
(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the
taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for
transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic
development or enhancement of tax revenues.


Check out that paragraph. This whole section only addresses a practice of taking your property WITHOUT "compensation". Not without "consent". That's a wholly DIFFERENT clause.

Oh no they CAN still take your property without your consent. As long as they provide you compensation they deem "adequate". HJR 14 only prohibits UNCOMPENSATED seizure.

So, the law the voters just approved says that Pfizer could need your house, get the state govt to seize it and give you what they feel is "market value", and you can do fark-all about it.
 
2009-11-11 03:06:25 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Eminent domain is absolutely necessary in at least some circumstances, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

I disagree with that. Theft is wrong, whether it is done through government or private actors.

Guess I'm not a reasonable person.

Yeah, I don't know. I kind of like highways. They're so convenient, you know, for traveling and transporting goods.

So without eminent domain, there would be no highways? Great argument.

The majority couldn't possibly offer people terms they were voluntarily willing to accept for their property, no, that would be too difficult. We'll just violently steal their homes, bulldoze them, and pay them peanuts in compensation, that's moral.


The problem there is that you have the situation where one person winds up extorting the state and is only willing to part with his turnip shed for $10 million. The threshold should be fair market value or replacement value.
 
2009-11-11 03:07:18 PM
MAAG: I have a friend who lost his bowling alley to eminent domain for an overflow parking lot to a big hotel, so now it sits empty every day of the year accept at Christmas time, and the amount he had to settle for in no way comes close to a lifetime of income for his family and heirs.

Which is why eminent domain should only be used for Highways, roads, sewers and other "public" works projects that help the overall economy. Using it so one group can take some one else's property on the cheap is what gets us into trouble.
 
2009-11-11 03:07:24 PM
The fact that they can even force you off your own land is deplorable. The fact they can compensate you far below market value is even worse.

In this case, friggin' Pfizer should not only be required to give up the land, but to replace everything destroyed to make way for their stupid plant.
 
hsg
2009-11-11 03:07:34 PM
EWreckedSean: What exactly do I do if i don't like the way I am being governed?

Vote for the other guy/party?

Look, I'm hardly going to say that our government is perfect. Far, far from it - but at least I theoretically have a voice in how it wields power. The massive influence and power over our society used by, say, Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs? I have no voice and no say over the damage it does. A politician who votes differently than I'd like, I can donate to and campaign for his opponent. A CEO decides to fire thousands so he can make millions of dollars? Nothing I can do.
 
2009-11-11 03:07:36 PM
Until America spits out Corporate America's dick, this country is a lie, a joke and a whorehouse that Lysol and curtains wont improve.

Push back or just dig a hole and lie down.
 
2009-11-11 03:08:07 PM
Asa Phelps: Right now, someone at Pfizer is explaining to people that if they hadn't turned the whole thing into a court battle and delayed construction for so long they'd have a profitable business there instead of a vacant lot.

Sadly, and even though I disagreed with the decision, This.
 
2009-11-11 03:08:46 PM
TheIndependent: sboyle1020: hsg: TheIndependent: point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

Good point - there isn't a group of human beings working together that can ever be totally trusted, from HOAs to banks to the boy scouts. For me, it comes down to motive - a government may have individuals within it that are corrupt and self serving, but it's overall mission is to keep society from collapsing. A modern corporation's entire raison d'etre is to profit as much as it can, whatever it takes, without any concern for morality. Hell, they can be sued by their shareholders if they *don't* do anything and everything to make money.

Soup kitchens...I think soup kitchens can be totally trusted.

I don't know; what if the person running the soup kitchen takes $.75 of every $1.00 off the top as a salary and uses only the remainder to run the actual soup kitchen.


That's why they remain soup kitchens and never become prime rib and crab legs kitchens.
 
2009-11-11 03:09:58 PM
Barbigazi: Half of the cities in Texas could be described as "urban blight".

And Half the countryside as Rural Blight.
 
2009-11-11 03:10:00 PM
ArgusRun: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Eminent domain is absolutely necessary in at least some circumstances, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

I disagree with that. Theft is wrong, whether it is done through government or private actors.

Guess I'm not a reasonable person.

Yeah, I don't know. I kind of like highways. They're so convenient, you know, for traveling and transporting goods.

So without eminent domain, there would be no highways? Great argument.

The majority couldn't possibly offer people terms they were voluntarily willing to accept for their property, no, that would be too difficult. We'll just violently steal their homes, bulldoze them, and pay them peanuts in compensation, that's moral.

The problem there is that you have the situation where one person winds up extorting the state and is only willing to part with his turnip shed for $10 million. The threshold should be fair market value or replacement value.


So buy the neighbor's house next door and build the highway around the turnip shed, problem solved. That is how markets operate.

By your logic, government should shut down and take over your local grocery store because allowing them to operate with you on a voluntary exchange basis is simply allowing them to extort you on necessary items like food by charging $1000/gallon for milk.
 
2009-11-11 03:10:03 PM
Devil's Playground:
So yes, I am objecting to George Bush's acquisition of the land for the Rangers.


Well, good. That was a few years before Kelo so it seems that Kelo was well-established before the SCOTUS got to it. You might want to let the rabble know they're barking up a second growth tree.
 
2009-11-11 03:10:50 PM
Nightsweat: Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg. It's a freaky weird pro-corporate welfare decision from the left. Usually those come from the other side.

Nothing freaky about it at all, really. The idea that private property rights are disposable, since they're subordinate to the "greater good", is a typical left- of- centre conceit. That corporate interests were the beneficiaries in this case is only incidental: Pfizer just happened to be the approved agent of State- sanctioned social engineering. But it should serve as a wake- up call for knee- jerk conservatives who believe that anything that improves the bottom line of corporations must necessarily be good. Too many companies have a mercenary stake in the expansion of government power at the expense of individual rights.
 
2009-11-11 03:11:08 PM
libbynomore2: too many people don't give a shiat about either governmental abuse as long as it isn't happening to them

Too many people think they have some effect on what government does without shoving a few million up some congressman's ass.

It's pay to play. You ragged masses can GTFO.
 
2009-11-11 03:12:17 PM
icy_one: howdyyall9999: University of California Regents v. Bakke

Loving v. Virginia.

Loving
was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions? Really?

Hold on to your Confederate dollars, boys, the South shall rise again!
 
2009-11-11 03:12:49 PM
Gunderson: I said don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot


Why not?
 
2009-11-11 03:12:59 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Not religious, nice shot in the dark.

I'm not saying you are or aren't. I'm saying your argument sounds like some natural law b.s. that has no support under our laws. Private property is a qualified right. Always has been, always will be.

If you want to express some basis as to what makes it absolute, I am right here.

Although I do find your unwavering faith in "The Constitution" and its supposedly eternal inviolable principles as some kind of religious canon to be hypocritical.

I am not being hypocritical. I actually believe the constitution is a living document. But the move over time has been to expand eminent domain, not eliminate it.

Not that necessarily I agree with that expansion. But eliminating it would be, put simply, effing nuts because it would render society unworkable.

That's why no one seriously proposes amending the constitution to eliminate it.
 
hsg
2009-11-11 03:13:02 PM
crazytrpr: If corporations weren't useful, the idea would have been scrapped 400 years ago. Even unions incorporate. The limited liability allows even a peasant like myself to invest and benefit from corporations without risking my families entire finances/assets should the venture fail. Corporations and their limited liability (reduced risk to investors) are generally useful, your standard of living would not be possible with out it.

The limited liability aspect of the corporation is a requirement in a modern economy. However, that doesn't mean that in exchange for that gift, it can't be required to operate in the public good.
 
2009-11-11 03:13:16 PM
ArgusRun: TheIndependent: sboyle1020: hsg: TheIndependent: point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

Good point - there isn't a group of human beings working together that can ever be totally trusted, from HOAs to banks to the boy scouts. For me, it comes down to motive - a government may have individuals within it that are corrupt and self serving, but it's overall mission is to keep society from collapsing. A modern corporation's entire raison d'etre is to profit as much as it can, whatever it takes, without any concern for morality. Hell, they can be sued by their shareholders if they *don't* do anything and everything to make money.

Soup kitchens...I think soup kitchens can be totally trusted.

I don't know; what if the person running the soup kitchen takes $.75 of every $1.00 off the top as a salary and uses only the remainder to run the actual soup kitchen.

That's why they remain soup kitchens and never become prime rib and crab legs kitchens.


Wow, tough crowd. There has to be one group/company/organization that we all feel can be trusted 100%. What about food banks? Can we agree on that one? Or the Salvation Army? Toys for Tots?
 
2009-11-11 03:14:01 PM
ArgusRun: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Debeo Summa Credo: Eminent domain is absolutely necessary in at least some circumstances, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

I disagree with that. Theft is wrong, whether it is done through government or private actors.

Guess I'm not a reasonable person.

Yeah, I don't know. I kind of like highways. They're so convenient, you know, for traveling and transporting goods.

So without eminent domain, there would be no highways? Great argument.

The majority couldn't possibly offer people terms they were voluntarily willing to accept for their property, no, that would be too difficult. We'll just violently steal their homes, bulldoze them, and pay them peanuts in compensation, that's moral.

The problem there is that you have the situation where one person winds up extorting the state and is only willing to part with his turnip shed for $10 million. The threshold should be fair market value or replacement value.


Well, fair market value/replacement value might not add a factor of sentimental objects. What if fair market value of an area is manipulated to be obscenely low prior to taking down the homes? Also, adding "sentimental value" or some facet of someone's salary creates obvious abuses too, so that shouldn't be done either. (millionaire guy owes a nowheresville second/third home for 20 grand, modified by millionaire's salary = worth retarded amounts?) etc. Even if you set a cap on that, it's ripe for abuse.
Or, suddenly your home is worth 10% of what it was due to changing the area they calculate the fair market value based off of.

Personally, I feel that someone shouldn't be able to be forced out of home, compensation or not. I'm sure some people are stupid and obscenely stubborn (example: folks who still refer to obama as hussein, in reference to saddam), but truthfully a home is a home owned by a person.
 
2009-11-11 03:14:31 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: So buy the neighbor's house next door and build the highway around the turnip shed, problem solved. That is how markets operate.

Unfortunately that's not how reality operates.

OK, this is getting silly. I am done here.
 
2009-11-11 03:14:51 PM
chewd: There is a shopping center in my town that was built on land unfairly seized through eminent domain.

I drive past it several times a day, but have never shopped there, and never will.

In fact there are a few stores there that I would like to shop at, but I instead go to similar stores in a different town. I have written letters to all the franchises which exist there, and have taken to boycotting all their chain stores.

Find out where eminent domain has taken place in your town, boycott those businesses and tell them why.


Start with WalMart
 
2009-11-11 03:15:36 PM
There was a story in Quebec about some town trying to pull this garbage on an entire street to make room for a highway. All the neighbors got together and burned down the mayor's house.

Seems strangely appropriate to me! :p
 
2009-11-11 03:16:53 PM
sboyle1020: ArgusRun: TheIndependent: sboyle1020: hsg: TheIndependent: point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

Good point - there isn't a group of human beings working together that can ever be totally trusted, from HOAs to banks to the boy scouts. For me, it comes down to motive - a government may have individuals within it that are corrupt and self serving, but it's overall mission is to keep society from collapsing. A modern corporation's entire raison d'etre is to profit as much as it can, whatever it takes, without any concern for morality. Hell, they can be sued by their shareholders if they *don't* do anything and everything to make money.

Soup kitchens...I think soup kitchens can be totally trusted.

I don't know; what if the person running the soup kitchen takes $.75 of every $1.00 off the top as a salary and uses only the remainder to run the actual soup kitchen.

That's why they remain soup kitchens and never become prime rib and crab legs kitchens.

Wow, tough crowd. There has to be one group/company/organization that we all feel can be trusted 100%. What about food banks? Can we agree on that one? Or the Salvation Army? Toys for Tots?


*ahem*
I'm gonna try my best Fark Regular impersonation on this one.

Food banks are forcing poor quality foods on the poor in order to keep them from the voting booths.
The Salvation Army is a christian organization that tries to use the profits from the clothes they collect to force women to not get abortions.
Toys for Tots is an organization bent on forcing even the poorest of our society to buy into the mass consumerism that is ripping our country apart.

How was that?
 
2009-11-11 03:18:23 PM
alltandubh: Nightsweat: Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg. It's a freaky weird pro-corporate welfare decision from the left. Usually those come from the other side.

Nothing freaky about it at all, really. The idea that private property rights are disposable, since they're subordinate to the "greater good", is a typical left- of- centre conceit. That corporate interests were the beneficiaries in this case is only incidental: Pfizer just happened to be the approved agent of State- sanctioned social engineering. But it should serve as a wake- up call for knee- jerk conservatives who believe that anything that improves the bottom line of corporations must necessarily be good. Too many companies have a mercenary stake in the expansion of government power at the expense of individual rights.


THIS Today Pfisor is the beneficiary then next next day it might be me that is the beneficiary or more likely I might be the loser. Companies that do this, are very short sited. Paybacks can be a mother farker. I don't want to live in a payback tit for tat society.
 
2009-11-11 03:18:37 PM
Oh yeah this is great. No longer a community but an industrial wasteland wanna-be.
If we didn't give corporate welfare in the form of protecting the oil and drug companies, we could damn well afford health care.

Come to Connecticut where a Senator can vote in favor of a war but not in favor of the health of his constituents.


Tiresome crap never ends
 
2009-11-11 03:19:03 PM
hsg: TheIndependent: point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

Good point - there isn't a group of human beings working together that can ever be totally trusted, from HOAs to banks to the boy scouts. For me, it comes down to motive - a government may have individuals within it that are corrupt and self serving, but it's overall mission is to keep society from collapsing. A modern corporation's entire raison d'etre is to profit as much as it can, whatever it takes, without any concern for morality. Hell, they can be sued by their shareholders if they *don't* do anything and everything to make money.


Although I generally agree with you in principal on government, in practice, people such as Barney Frank et. al. have carte blanche to do everything they want except run a gay brothel out of their home and they will still win re-election because of the district they are in. There is no one keeping him and many others honest (same obviously goes for the Republican's). Seriously, having an intern show up dead or gay molested is maybe the only guaranteed way to get fired.

As it pertains to most corporations, I do not trust them either. Besides, they will bribe the government to look the other way when they are breaking laws. Use them as much as they would like to use you, beat them at their own game... it's the only way to half-win.

Basically the only person you can truly rely on is yourself. You know what you want and what you need.

Don't abdicate responsibility by letting others make those decisions for you.
 
2009-11-11 03:20:31 PM
hsg: garandman1a: Anyone who trusts government (and I don't care whose in charge) which is completely unregulated, without competition and outside of any responsibilities for its actions, more than a company (all companies are regulated in some form or another) in competition with other companies who are all simply seeking a profit is someone I will never understand.

Anyone who trusts a corporation, a paper fiction masquerading as a "person", legally required to do anything to shortsightedly squeeze as much profit out of its customers and employees as possible, over a government that on a regular basis is subject to reelection, is someone I'll never understand.


Wow, just wow. Not sure what country you live in, but in the US corporations have never been "legally required to do anything to shortsightedly squeeze as much profit out of its customers and employees as possible". In fact, just the opposite. They blink the wrong way without paying massive government largesse they are toast.

For the other side of the equation, I guess the fact that congressional approval ratings are in the 25% range or lower for some time, yet the re-election ratings for the same group is over 95% (399 for re-election, 382 winning in 2008) shows how much oversight the government gets. Couldn't be any laws made by government to protect government, they are by definition better then us peons and would never do such a thing.

So I guess you're saying that without this government 'eminent domain' protections of the people, the corporations would have made it so much worse for everyone involved? Please explain.
 
2009-11-11 03:21:01 PM
That sounds awfully familiar. Right before the Kelo decision, my city spent $5m to turn a housing complex into a shopping center. It's still a vacant lot, and probably will be for years to come.
 
2009-11-11 03:21:05 PM
bunner: Until America spits out Corporate America's dick, this country is a lie, a joke and a whorehouse that Lysol and curtains wont improve.

Push back or just dig a hole and lie down.


The real problem is that most Americans think it's ok for the government to take one person's property and give it to another, under some circumstances. The problem is that once you set the precedent, politicians will sell that power to the highest bidder. The only solution is to take away the government's authority to violate property rights. That will never happen.
 
2009-11-11 03:22:19 PM
yakmans_dad: Devil's Playground:
So yes, I am objecting to George Bush's acquisition of the land for the Rangers.

Well, good. That was a few years before Kelo so it seems that Kelo was well-established before the SCOTUS got to it. You might want to let the rabble know they're barking up a second growth tree.


Could you link to the Supreme Court case involving the Texas Rangers Vs evicted home owners? Kthxbai.
 
2009-11-11 03:22:19 PM
yakmans_dad: Devil's Playground:
So yes, I am objecting to George Bush's acquisition of the land for the Rangers.

Well, good. That was a few years before Kelo so it seems that Kelo was well-established before the SCOTUS got to it. You might want to let the rabble know they're barking up a second growth tree.


Yes, but the Kelo case is what this thread is addressing right now. It was also when the highest court in the land said it was alright for the local governments to steal a persons land to redistribute it to another in order to raise taxes, as that was in the best interest of the municipality. I do not see how any right minded individual can argue in favor of that practice. I can see the use of eminent domain to build a new freeway or fire station, but to take my home because walmart or pfizer want it is wrong.
 
2009-11-11 03:24:57 PM
At some point the purpose of government is supposed to be protection of citizens, not to collect the most money and ensure the greatest financial profit of various companies. This easy to figure out, this is unjust, unethical and should be illegal, the supremes really goofed letting this one through. I hope they lose their vacation homes to a mini-mall.
 
2009-11-11 03:25:02 PM
gilgigamesh: Private property is a qualified right. Always has been, always will be.

Prove that it "always will be." Oh wait, you can't, because that's just based on your own prejudices from growing up in a society in which this construct called government can take what it wants from you.

Don't you think in the middle ages people went around saying "the divine right of kings has always been, and always will be" under their historically prevalent and philosophically supported at the time leviathan theory of government?

You don't see the parallels between that and what you are shilling for now, precluding any kind of human progress or change that may come after you are gone? How egotistical to think that the times you are living in are truly the end of times, and you are the pinnacle of evolution, your way the "one, true, best way" that "always has been, and always will be."

Ozymandias, anyone?
 
2009-11-11 03:26:12 PM
Treygreen13: sboyle1020: ArgusRun: TheIndependent: sboyle1020: hsg: TheIndependent: point; counter-point... exceptionally well done... but perhaps it is neither can really be trusted?

Good point - there isn't a group of human beings working together that can ever be totally trusted, from HOAs to banks to the boy scouts. For me, it comes down to motive - a government may have individuals within it that are corrupt and self serving, but it's overall mission is to keep society from collapsing. A modern corporation's entire raison d'etre is to profit as much as it can, whatever it takes, without any concern for morality. Hell, they can be sued by their shareholders if they *don't* do anything and everything to make money.

Soup kitchens...I think soup kitchens can be totally trusted.

I don't know; what if the person running the soup kitchen takes $.75 of every $1.00 off the top as a salary and uses only the remainder to run the actual soup kitchen.

That's why they remain soup kitchens and never become prime rib and crab legs kitchens.

Wow, tough crowd. There has to be one group/company/organization that we all feel can be trusted 100%. What about food banks? Can we agree on that one? Or the Salvation Army? Toys for Tots?

*ahem*
I'm gonna try my best Fark Regular impersonation on this one.

Food banks are forcing poor quality foods on the poor in order to keep them from the voting booths.
The Salvation Army is a christian organization that tries to use the profits from the clothes they collect to force women to not get abortions.
Toys for Tots is an organization bent on forcing even the poorest of our society to buy into the mass consumerism that is ripping our country apart.

How was that?


Good...Purple Heart?
 
2009-11-11 03:27:53 PM
Devil's Playground: A short time ago there was a thread arguing about some guy showing up at a rally with a gun and a sign, and every one was shouting that this guy was treasonous. Was he really? Or was he making a point?

He wasn't being treasonous, nor was he breaking any law (as yet). But he was being a jackass. The US has a democratically- elected government. Tho' the state may act tyrannically in isolated respects, this is only because an apathetic populace lets them get away with it. Get politically involved and change the course of future elections, and leave the implied threats for the terrorists and other avowed enemies of freedom.
 
Displayed 50 of 437 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report