The U.S. Supreme Court crushes the little guy yet again

[ElPietro]

If you guys want to cockfight over Karl Marx do it in another thread.

[Jorge Sanchez]

Perhaps my choice of words was not the best, but the basic idea behind property producing wealth is that owning property (ie: a factory) will make money for the owner with very little work on the part of the owner. This idea is completly consistent with Marx's rejection of interest. He did not think that money should beget money.

The Communist manifesto did not actually outline communism as you say. Insead, it outlined the process -which Marx believed to be inevitable- through which the proletariat would overthrow bougeoisie and create a communist society. For Marx, communism would be a naturally occurring phenomenon that would occur regardless of himself. After this revolution, "[i]n place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Communist Manifesto). So you see, Marx saw a utopian society in which there was no domination and only cooperation. Utopian and impractical, but not totalitarian.

Perhaps you would appreciate Marx's understanding of history if you took it for what it really was: an explanation for the changing modes of production as a result of class conflict rather than an exhaustive recounting of history.

And "It's obvious we both disagree with THE RULING" does not mean that we disagree with each other.

I never stated that the US was anything except inconsistent. And I agree that a variety of opinions among the population is desirable. However, the US government -and general public to a greater or lesser extent- seem to have certain values and ideals that they invoke when it is convenient and disregard when it is not (ie: individual liberty, free trade, etc.) But I am not singling out the US; I cannot think of a single country, or person for that matter, that is not guilty of the same charge.

But back to the original argument... In the simplest terms, you claim Marx wanted the government to take away ALL private-property for the collective use. That, you argue, is the essence of Marxism/communism. What this ruling does is to allow the government to take away ANY, not all, private-property to be redistributed as private, not collective, property.

And I thikn you would better appreciate Marx's contribution to Western thought -which even you have to admit is substantial-if you separated Marx's thought from Soviet communism. Communism doesn't work; that doesn't make Marx an idiot.

[SW]

I'm sickened, but not at all suprised.

I'm against Eminent Domain in ANY case, which is a stance not in keeping with what the Constitution says. However, I think it pretty clear what was meant.

And 'more tax revenue' isn't what they meant.

This isn't just a right or left thing, though. Both sides want the governmnet to have control of your stuff. They just want to use your stuff for different things.

****ing right Paul. Eminent domain pisses me off to no end.

[shootermcgavin7]

What this ruling does is to allow the government to take away ANY, not all, private-property to be redistributed as private, not collective, property.

I'm curious as to your distinction between:

"The government can take all the property" and
"The government can take any property it wants, whenever it wants"


You also stated earlier that you saw some sort of difference in the fact that the government is "redistributing it to private companies for the public good" and "redistributing it for the public good".

I don't think the government should be "redistributing" any private land/homes/etc; it ends up looking like communism no matter how you word it.

I never stated that the US was anything except inconsistent. And I agree that a variety of opinions among the population is desirable. However, the US government -and general public to a greater or lesser extent- seem to have certain values and ideals that they invoke when it is convenient

Again, in one of your original posts, you mentioned "especially of the conservative variety".

Most, if not all, of the "conservative" judges voted AGAINST this ruling. They actually put their pens where their mouths were for once. I'm slightly surprised.

[Tryska]

actually, i would say that this decision will be perceived by those on the left as a victory for the "little guy"

however erroneous that assumption may be

i foresee this precedent being used for big government to take away land from the "privileged" to redistribute wealth and services to the "underprivileged"

you would be wrong.


looks to me like people of all political leaning are upset by this ruling.

[Tryska]

all dem appointed judges decided in favor of the city

yeah - all 2 of them.

[Jorge Sanchez]

I'm curious as to your distinction between:

"The government can take all the property" and
"The government can take any property it wants, whenever it wants"

All means all, any means some.

I don't think the government should be "redistributing" any private land/homes/etc; it ends up looking like communism no matter how you word it.

I agree with this 100%. My argument though is that the original eminent domain is more communistic in that it is taking away property to be given to the collective, whereas this decision means that the property can be taken away and given to the specific/individual.

Again, in one of your original posts, you mentioned "especially of the conservative variety".

Most, if not all, of the "conservative" judges voted AGAINST this ruling. They actually put their pens where their mouths were for once. I'm slightly surprised.

My initial post was aimed more at the general than the specific. I wasn't thinking of this case in particular. Also, I am not American and know next to nothing about all these judges. And my personal bias leads me to believe that they are all conservative.

But I digress, I have wasted too much time on this already. It's been fun, and you make some good points.

[Jorge Sanchez]

looks to me like people of all political leaning are upset by this ruling.

I'm sorry if you have to boil this down to an argument of left vs. right

[Gyno Rhino]

yeah - all 2 of them.

And if they had voted the other way....

[Gyno Rhino]

All means all, any means some.

Any - One, some, every, or all without specification: Take any book you want. Are there any messages for me? Any child would love that. Give me any food you don't want.

So any also means all.

[Tryska]

And if they had voted the other way....

then we wouldn't be in this predicament.


it's great to blame the "liberal activist democratic appointed judges" for all sorts of crap, but in reality they are 2 of 9.

[Gyno Rhino]

then we wouldn't be in this predicament.


it's great to blame the "liberal activist democratic appointed judges" for all sorts of crap, but in reality they are 2 of 9.

I didn't blame them. Most of the SC cronies are crapping all over the principles that made this country so great.

That said, doesn't matter if a group is 2 of 9 or 1 of 9, when the decision is split by 1 - any single person could have made a difference.

[Tryska]

I'm sorry if you have to boil this down to an argument of left vs. right

i agree....but that's what's been done to this country isn't it?

[Tryska]

I didn't blame them. Most of the SC cronies are crapping all over the principles that made this country so great.

That said, doesn't matter if a group is 2 of 9 or 1 of 9, when the decision is split by 1 - any single person could have made a difference.

yes - liberal or conservative.

[Gyno Rhino]

yes - liberal or conservative.

Right.

But just because there's 2 of the cats doesn't give them an excuse to vote any which way they want because "their vote don't matter".

Anyway, we're agreeing.

[ElPietro]

Deep Thoughts, by ElPietro:

Sometimes, when I don't understand the constant Liberal vs Democrat bickering, I picture two re:tarded kids, trying to blame one another infront of their guardian, over spilled milk...then it all starts to make sense.

[Gyno Rhino]

Deep Thoughts, by ElPietro:

Sometimes, when I don't understand the constant Liberal vs Democrat bickering, I picture two re:tarded kids, trying to blame one another infront of their guardian, over spilled milk...then it all starts to make sense.

I should ban you for bypassing the filter.

And for pointing out the obvious.

[Roark]

the reason i initially said anything concerning partisanship

is simply for the fact that many would paint this as some pro-big business republican boondogle

when in fact the only two dem appointees voted against property rights

and since the dems like to fancy themselves as anti-big business, that would seem a bit odd

i'm neither, so there

if anything, i see this precedent as being used to promote "smart growth" and other such taxpayer burdens

[bigsethmeister]

if they take my house where will i build my armored bulldozer?

[Tryska]

i'm sure many of you will whine about liberal meda bias - but Now (which used to be with Bill Moyers) on PBS had a really good segment on Eminent Domain being used for Pirvate development last night. Apparently this case isn't the first - it's currently going on in Ohio and NJ as well.

I wonder if it's happend in some of the areas of Atlanta as well. I've seen quite a few "blighted" neighborhoods razed to make way for Linens and Things and Circuit City.

In the City's defense these neighborhoods were truly "blighted" - but the abuses of Eminent Domain come in when local governments can stretch their definition of "blighted" to make the case for razing a neighborhood. Seems at least in the cases of the neighborhoods of Ohio and NJ - "blighted" means neighborhoods that pay low property taxes.


i've got two issues here - one constitutional, one purely aesthetic:

1. Whilst Eminent Domain is in the constitution - it allows for the taking of private porperty for the "PUBLIC" good. I think saying private developers are working for the "public good" by placing higher taxed properties on previous private properties is disengenuous at best.

But at the same time - this is the type of stuff that starts looking rational when one "starves the beast" of tax revenues, either on the federal level (thereby shifting resposnibility to state governments, who shift the burden to local governments), or on any of the other levels of taxation. (not that this is an excuse - just a results of said policies)

on a purely aesthetic level - i'm saddended by the potential loss of older and more mature neighborhoods, with some prime examples of American architecture for the middle and working classes.

Soon we're all gonna live in condos like a bunch of bees in a hive.

[Rastaman]

if anything, i see this precedent as being used to promote "smart growth" and other such taxpayer burdens

Wow, you support this decision? Hopefully your home (if you own one) is the first to be seized by the government.