Rant Railways, whats happening?

[insanity]

Yeah, the elected government of the people, by the people, for the lobbies.



Keep hoping.

Come on, we all know that representative democracy is a scam we're stuck with. Weber told us a long time ago that the people in charge are usually the blood-suckers. One of the biggest downfalls of human social life is that we need hierarchy so that we can begin to have any degree of trust in our daily business with each-other.

We also know that legitimacy is more or less the right to use force and not get in trouble. Personally, I'd rather have the leeches creating public goods by cohesion instead of redistributing the wealth to the top 5% and expect a trickle-down in unregulated markets.

 

[Ark]

Yeah, the elected government of the people, by the people, for the lobbies.



Keep hoping.

Yeah, actually expecting government to work the way it does on paper is pretty optimistic. :lol:

I still believe it's fully necessary, though, to keep one person from holding up the economic progress of an entire country. That's really the reason for eminent domain existing in the first place. A high-speed train line running up and down the coast will benefit far more people for far longer than some guy's trailer and strawberry field.

 

[insanity]

Even the people of California wanted it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_1A_%282008%29

Notice the passage all along the corridor the train would run?

 

[Notebook]

Intersting, a high turnout, and quite a close vote. Must have generated a lot of opinion.

N.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

Eminent domain is a constitutional provision allowing the state to pay fair prices for land to build public-goods

Doesn't make it right. Private property is sacred; no government ever has any sort of morally legitimate authority to take the property of an innocent individual from him without his consent, regardless of the purpose.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

Without eminent domain, we wouldn't have an interstate system, nor essentially any of the modern conveniences necessary to run the country.

So?

The sanctity of the individual and his sacred natural rights are inherently infinitely more important than any other consideration.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

The fact that it's the elected government of the people (well, the rest of the people)

That does not automatically make it legitimate.

"The people" do not own my property; I do.

"The people" are not sovereign over my property; I am.

Therefore, "the people" never have any sort of morally legitimate authority to take my property from me without my consent.

 

[tl8]

I believe The Castle is the best response for this post

Oh, you do not completely own your land, at least in the Australia, the state owns the land under the surface. And again, if they give you a fair price for your land then legally you would have to go.

However this has little to do with railways

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

Oh, you do not completely own your land, at least in the Australia, the state owns the land under the surface.

No, you completely own your land everywhere (unless you have specifically and explicitly sold certain rights) regardless of what the law in your jurisdiction says.

Ownership is a matter not of law but of objective moral principle, and if law conflicts with objective moral principle then law is wrong.

 

[Hielor]

Doesn't make it right. Private property is sacred; no government ever has any sort of morally legitimate authority to take the property of an innocent individual from him without his consent, regardless of the purpose.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------


So?

The sanctity of the individual and his sacred natural rights are inherently infinitely more important than any other consideration.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------


That does not automatically make it legitimate.

"The people" do not own my property; I do.

"The people" are not sovereign over my property; I am.

Therefore, "the people" never have any sort of morally legitimate authority to take my property from me without my consent.

So to protest eminent domain, do you not drive on freeways?

Or do you speak one thing while doing another?

 

[Andy44]

So to protest eminent domain, do you not drive on freeways?

Or do you speak one thing while doing another?

I don't understand this argument. You pull it out everytime one of these debates begins.

Kurt is saying the system is morally wrong. But until he gets enough people to make it right (like you, perhaps), he has to make a living like the rest of us.

To call him a hypocrite for using tax-funded or emminent-domain-obtained roads and public services is a short cut. Your side (the side that believes in emminent domain) won the argument by force a long time ago, you force Kurt to live in it, then you call him a hypocrite for trying to argue to change it.

Argue against his ideas, if you must, but there's no need to get personal.

To tl8: It has to do with railways to the extent that much railroad land has been obtained through emminent domain in the past and continues to do so, and because I opened my big mouth this thread went off in that direction.

Currently in Northern Virginia a new Metro commuter line is being constructed to link Washington, DC with Dulles airport (last I heard, anyway), and the land for it is being obtained through emminent domain.

I want to apologize to everyone who just wants to talk about trains for giving insanity a reason to take the thread into this territory...I should never have voiced my opinion on the California high-speed rail proposal in the first place.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I again remind on the consequences of no eminent domain: a tiny minority can have the freedom to block something that is desired by all the rest. Or set the price to be completely astronomic.

Eminent domain is actually a way to preserve freedom. If ownership would be unlimited (instead of just being protected by the state), ownership could be without responsibility and could also be used for terrorizing the other citizens. But that can not work and I actually can't imagine a society that could be kept stable without.

A dictatorship of the minority is not better than the dictatorship of the majority.

 

[Andy44]

Ah...nevermind. Want to get away from the whole "not talking about trains" thing.

 

[Hielor]

No, you completely own your land everywhere (unless you have specifically and explicitly sold certain rights) regardless of what the law in your jurisdiction says.

Ownership is a matter not of law but of objective moral principle, and if law conflicts with objective moral principle then law is wrong.

So since you own your own land and the government has no say over it, you are free to do things like kill people on your land without worrying about someone coming after you for it?

Interesting objective moral principles you subscribe to...