good lord,
ya'all are making me feel mighty old.
henry rollins,frontman for the pre-eminent punk band "black flag" which gained notoriety in the early 80's.
the man was brutal,known for punching fans who got too ballsy.
lets put it this way "my generations rock stars can kick the crap out of your generations".
we had henry rollins and sid vicious.
you guys get nickleback and 30 seconds to mars.
WE WIN!

The funny thing is, you wouldn't call the president those names to his face.

That makes you a coward, QM..

Are you retarded? Never mind, that's not a fair question. Here, play with these colorful blocks.

Know what Obama can't do to MY face? Show me a real birth certificate proving he's a native-born American.

Doesn't it feel good to be allowed the freedom to spout your bullshit?

It sure does. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, doofus.

I would take that freedom from you if i were in charge..

Of course you would! That's why there are 200 million privately-owned guns in this country. The Founding Fathers knew your kind would skulk out of the shadows one day.
But I admire your honesty, as your left-wing brethren are still pretending they want to hear ALL sides of an argument. You skip all that and admit you're a liberal-fascist.

Be glad you have Obama, who will pander with exquisite skill to all sides as a president should.

Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all of the time. We call them Obama voters.

Speaking of trollin', you haven't said a damned thing addressing either eminent domain, or my comment, which was about the abolition of private property by the liberal-fascist thugs you hold in such high regard.

Really, stop bringing the intellectual equivalent of a toothpick to a gunfight.

Dickweed!

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

>> ^blankfist:
Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.
How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?

Progressives don't like it when big business get our tax dollars. Usually we argue for things like small business subsidies, regular welfare (ya know, for poor people), anti-trust legislation and enforcement, etc.

We also don't like corporate tax loopholes, capital gains tax cuts, or attempts to eliminate or reduce estate taxes, or the porcine industry-specific tax cut.

We don't like when people are putting their hands in the cookie jar who shouldn't be, we just don't think getting rid of the jar will help fix the problem.

Me: To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?
blankfist: Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

I fail to see how detaching power and influence from the constraint of law, or the accountability of a ballot box improves anything.

If you have a suggestion on how to make sure that the people our Constitution and our democracy empower to make decisions regarding when to go to war will always use it wisely, I'm all ears.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.
Any questions?

Yes, are you nuts?

The tax code is too complex, but the real issue with it is not the complexity, it's the fact that most of that complexity is designed to benefit people with multiple homes, businesses, yachts, and complex investment portfolios.

The free market provides me with tax preparation services, though most of them tell me "you don't own enough for us to do much for you" (though they say it very differently).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when's the last time you faced a legal penalty for anything bigger than a traffic violation? For that matter, have you ever gotten a traffic violation for something you didn't know was illegal?

To turn that around, do you understand your credit card agreement? Your cellphone contract? Have you ever received a bill that included a fee you were charged for doing something you didn't realize they could charge a fee for? Should they be able to sell the information you provided them without your consent?

Why isn't the free market stopping that stuff from happening already?

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.

How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?



To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?

Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.

Any questions?

It is often necessary and justified for building roads or train routes that don't zigzag all over the place. But if it's for building privately-held strip malls, fuck eminent domain. Let them shop online. If it's for memorials or other frivolous decorations, eminent domain should not be used.

Its not though, its an accurate portrayal of your views, is it not? When you say "I agree with it, as long as it is used wisely" are you not saying "I believe that the ends justify the means?"

Such a statement is really a philosophy - how else could you describe the manner in which you form that belief? When you see an ends that you agree with, you justify the means in any way you can; most often, by citing the alleged benevolence of that particular end.

The problem with that is how do you explain your philosophy to others? All it is is a muddle of arbitrary opinions, of which no other person could possibly have in common with you. What you do when you support a statement like "I agree as long as it is used wisely" is give support to other people who are seeking to implement their ends.

And I don't think we have to debate the danger of such a philosophy.

To illustrate this point further, please try to justify your support for eminent domain - without citing the ends.

>> ^NetRunner:
That seems like an uncalled for swipe

>> ^blankfist:
And do we really need more superhighways? Where are you pro-green anti-global warming rabble rousers?!

Calling for your house to be knocked down and turned into a solar power plant, wind power farm, high-speed rail stop, or perhaps just a big public compost heap, with A$$ GR@V33!

Eminent domain is a back burner issue.

Obsama's thugverment is full speed ahead in other ways.

The Supreme Dolts' failure to review the Chrysler deal allows unsecured creditors (union) to be placed ahead of secured creditors. This is a clear violation of contract law and the bankruptcy laws, and our basic right to property.

If you bought/had Chrysler bonds you are screwed, and any property YOU own can now be seized since the law of contracts has been broken and the sheeple follow the pied piper into tyranny.

The arbitrary and secretive closing of car dealerships is appalling. Contract law means nothing to these tyrants. One dealer in Minn has
been in bus for 90 years and is very profitable. The tyrants are forcing them out of business, they will lose all they have invested.

Would you like that???

The tyrants won't answer the dealerships' question: why us??

If we do not wake up the question becomes: when will the tyrants come for your business/property on some flimsy pretext?

The goal of the tyrants in power is to nationalize private enterprise (like Argentina) and control the means of production.

Either Obamarx goes, or freedom goes.

The original intent of eminent domain was to allow government the ability to attain property in order to build government buildings, such as courthouses. In other words, if that evil Mr. Potter owned all the land in Bedford Falls (I apologize for the It's a Wonderful Life reference no matter how apt) and refused to sell any of it to allow for government to work within his town, then the government could use eminent domain.

The only criteria necessary for eminent domain is 1) the property has to be aquired for "public use", 2) the acquisition must be made lawfully with "due process", and 3) the private owner of the property must be given "just compensation".

So, it could be argued that eminent domain had a purpose at the onset of this nation to ensure the Mr. Potters allowed the government to build all the necessary courthouses or government buildings. But, don't you think now we have enough government buildings and courthouses? And never was eminent domain meant for the creation of parks or museums. I don't care how awesome that museum is, I don't think it's worth being built if they need to steal someone's private land to erect it.

It's just too much power for the government to abuse. It should be done away with. It really cannot serve any greater purpose. What other government buildings do we need to build? And do we really need more superhighways? Where are you pro-green anti-global warming rabble rousers?!

I don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used properly, either. But this case is bullshit. First of all, I simply don't agree with that monstrosity of a memorial. Should they get a memorial? Sure. Does it need to be THAT fucking huge? Hell no. Do you REALLY need 2,000 acres for a memorial that probably won't attract much traffic a year after it's built? Fuck no.

>> ^imstellar28:
I agree with all manifestations of my own opinions, regardless of the consequences.
(guh)

That seems like an uncalled for swipe based on a failure of reading comprehension.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I generally don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used wisely

What part of that indicates "regardless of the consequences", or for that matter what my opinion is beyond classifying a subset of possible outcomes that I don't take issue with?

I'm not in favor of an absolute, unchecked power of eminent domain. I'm not in favor of abolishing it, either.

Likewise, I'm not in favor of an absolute, unchecked right to property. I'm not in favor of abolishing it, either.

To give my $0.02 on the Flight 93 memorial story, I think it's fishy that neither party was willing to disclose what's being offered for the land. Personally, I have trouble understanding why Lambert would be making a fuss about turning that area into a monument, other than because he's holding out for more money. Beyond that, I don't think I'm qualified to make a judgment on how the court case should be decided from just a single news article clearly aimed more at entertaining than informing.

As for the Kelo case KP linked, I also don't feel qualified to say how that should have been decided either, though that's certainly a much more contentious issue, and I'm not surprised it came down to a 5-4 split. As is usual, I don't care much for the fearmongering crap the conservative justices put in their opinions, especially when the majority's opinion specifies limitations and conditions on what sort of precedent they're intending to set.

However, the Wikipedia page's postmortem makes it clear that the City had not acted in good faith. Had Justice Kennedy's criteria been thoroughly looked through, they would have either been forced to handle the situation more equitably, or just lost the case outright. To me, that seems like a pretty straightforward list of things to look at if you're part of the Kelo legal team...

All that said, I prefer for eminent domain claims to be for public infrastructure, places of historical significance, and natural preservation (i.e. parks). Doing it for economic development seems questionable to me, but in my cursory reading of the decision, there appears to be existing precedent for it, and the Kelo case didn't modify that. My only real criticism of the decision is that they didn't make Kennedy's criteria binding for lower courts, which would help to root out cases where eminent domain is being used for evil selfish capitalist gain.

Eminent domain is just the bleeding edge of a property system. As long as we have a system of property conflicts will arise, and somebody will be required to abdicate their privileges so that others may exercise theirs.

My house has power, gas, phone lines etc. These things are here because of right of ways which were added to my property after my house was built over 100 years ago. Having these things really does not piss me off, giving up control of a small fraction of my property for the common good does not seem like a real problem to me.

On the other hand, in the case of rezone/relocate, we need a better method for determining the fair value, not only of the property, but of the cost of relocation. If the state is going to impose relocation, they need to be prepared to pay all the costs and losses which result from it. The state should also be forbidden from selling property claimed in this way for at least a decade, so that it's not easily misused.

I agree with all manifestations of my own opinions, regardless of the consequences.

(guh)

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I generally don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used wisely
I agree.

I think opening a new funeral parlor can be quite an undertaking.


'What's your take on eminent domain'... you kidder you.

Shocker. Care to elaborate in the blog?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I generally don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used wisely

I agree.