6 ms·
A large corporation arriving in a foreign country, manipulating the local government into forcing people out of their homes so that the corporation can take the
by mabbo 9y ago
A large corporation arriving in a foreign country, manipulating the local government into forcing people out of their homes so that the corporation can take the land for their own purposes. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I'm not saying it's right or good, but I am saying that America's success in the 20th century was in part due to these exact tactics used on other countries around the world. And based on history, I would say you need to stand up and fight this sort of thing because it only gets worse.
- rayiner 9y agoDoesn’t sound familiar what are you talking about?
- oblib 9y agoWell, for an easy start you might look into our military bases in foreign nations. From there you can look for US based corporations that have mines, factories, etc, in foreign nations.
- kalleboo 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in_Central_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_i...
- ajross 9y agoEminent domain abuse is much more than just multinationals. Far more people have lost their homes to politically desirable highways and reservoirs than to Evil Foreign Actors. Most of the time, even, it seems like a good trade in hindsight. I don't know anything about this particular situation. But personally, as long as there's a reasonably justified need (a new factory seems like it would qualify) and the evicted are appropriately compensated ("fair" can be hard to quantify, of course), I don't see that this is something we need to be outraged about.
- mikeash 9y agoWhy would a factory qualify as a reasonably justified need? Unless it produces weapons in wartime, it’s a private entity engaging in private business and the government’s role ought to be limited to making sure everyone plays by the rules. If the factory needs a bunch of land, it should have to buy that land just like you or I would. If it’s not practical for some reason, then the factory should be built elsewhere, or not be built at all.
- jstarfish 9y agoESID, but some rural areas really, really need the jobs that would be created a lot more than the sentiments of a handful of people who don't want to move. In such cases it's in the community's best interest to displace holdouts in order to grow the local economy.
- kelnos 9y agoIf it's a rural area, surely they can build the factor in a place where they don't have to destroy people's homes, no? Even if the state/county has to build new roads, power lines, water mains, etc. to support a new locale, seems like that would be better than taking people's land away. I'm sympathetic to the idea of using eminent domain to take land for public projects, but for a private company? Nope. That's simply insane.
- dahdum 9y agoImpeding, or just not encouraging, job growth in rural communities devastates them far more than rare eminent domain issues. Building all new infrastructure can quickly turn an endeavor unprofitable, resulting in it not being done at all. There is a balance, but I favor the use of eminent domain to expand economic opportunities to rural areas, as long as the buyouts are above market rate. Those that are affected are often the wealthier and older homeowners, not the struggling young families that most need help.
- 9y ago
- diogenescynic 9y agoOnly in this case it’s mostly due to a republican controlled government.
- briandear 9y agoCreating jobs. How terrible. The alternative is no factory, no jobs.
- candiodari 9y agoAnd all that needs to happen is to take a few people, through corruption (that's what government fraud is called) declare the result of 20 years of saving (those houses) worthless and then throw them into the street. Do you really think that people will benefit under a government/company combination that finds these actions acceptable ? Because ... they won't. No way.
- briandear 9y agoThose people get more than fair market value for the houses. They aren’t getting thrown in the street. Check the facts.
- diogenescynic 9y agoNo, they objectively aren’t. That’s the entire reason they are categorizing the houses are blighted: >on their properties. Many brought pictures. “We spent our life savings on this thing, and now we gotta move,” said Alfredo Ortiz, an 18-year resident. “It’s an insult,” he added, reflecting the general mood of the testimonies. It was extremely personal for these residents; having your carefully maintained residence, or in at least one case, recently built dream home, designated as blighted. It’s weird though because republicans are normally the defenders of propert rights, but I guess they always do default to favoring the rich over the poor so this is still consistent. Just compare the quality of life and wages from Wisconsin (republican stronghold) to Minnesota (democrat controlled) and it’s obvious which is better run...
- skookumchuck 9y agoEvery government that ever existed more than transiently did this sort of thing. It's done every time the government wants to put in a road, a palace, a port, a fortification, a school, a prison, a military base, a nationalized industry, etc. It's easier for communist countries, though, because the government already confiscated everything.