4 ms·

> First: "Expropriate" is both emotionally loaded and inaccurate. Wrong. Expropriate is a technical term for taking property from someone, usually by the state

> First: "Expropriate" is both emotionally loaded and inaccurate. Wrong. Expropriate is a technical term for taking property from someone, usually by the state for public use. The emotion you're referring to is all associated with the act itself. You've also failed to identify an inaccuracy. > It looks like you're trying to be manipulative here rather than present a sound argument. All I did was ask a question. > Why should they take more money from people to save peoples' houses? Why should my taxes go up to save your house? Your taxes are going up because the government has decided to build a road or rail line. Why should the cost of that be artificially low because the government is able to expropriate people's homes? > Note that this is a completely separate discussion from whether eminent domain actually pays people market prices for their homes. By definition, it does not. This is why your statement: > we're either going to spend some money and buy peoples' homes, elides the relevant factor: people are being <strike>expropriated</strike> deprived of their homes through threat of violence in order to lower the cost of infrastructure. > we're going to spend more money and create a tunnel. But money doesn't grow on trees for local governments; if they spend it, they have to take it. Perhaps the government needs to exercise fiscal discipline. Perhaps the government can't afford a new rail.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Expropriate can mean taking by eminent domain, but it also can mean taking with no compensation whatsoever. And the context in which we (all right, I) most often hear the word is the latter - when a government takes property without paying for it, or paying only a pittance. Mea culpa, though: Until I looked at dictionary.com, I didn't know it could be used for eminent domain. > All I did was ask a question. "How can someone be so callous?" That's a question, but it's not just a question. It's pushing a viewpoint. > > Note that this is a completely separate discussion from whether eminent domain actually pays people market prices for their homes. > By definition, it does not. By definition? I call BS. In fact, the Constitution requires "just compensation". Now, have governments abused that, and actually offered less than just compensation? Of course. But "by definition"? No. > elides the relevant factor: people are being <strike>expropriated</strike> deprived of their homes through threat of violence in order to lower the cost of infrastructure. Nice whine. But in fact the government does have the right to do that, and for quite good reasons. And, if they make the tunnel, they're going to have to take different peoples' houses. > Perhaps the government needs to exercise fiscal discipline. Perhaps the government can't afford a new rail. On that point, I agree with you at least some of the time.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Expropriate can mean taking by eminent domain, but it also can mean taking with no compensation whatsoever. Yeah, it just means 'taking property.' It doesn't reference compensation. > "How can someone be so callous?" That's a question, but it's not just a question. It's pushing a viewpoint. Well it does imply that the person referenced is being callous towards the concerns of the property owners, which is why I asked the question. I'm not sure what viewpoint you think I'm pushing. I'm wondering how someone can be so dismissive of the concerns of a homeowner regarding the government depriving them of their home in a place they chose to live. They picked that house and that place for a variety of reasons then invested their time, their life, their families, and their money in that community. Then some bureaucrat says "we need this for <aquaducts>, get out or die. Here's a check." Its one thing to exercise your best judgment and believe that when the public interest is balanced against the private interest, this is the greater good. But when someone callously disregards the interest of the homeowner in the home and community they have chosen to be part of, it raises serious questions about whether their interests are actually being balanced fairly. When someone is casually dismissive of a person's interest in continuing to own the home that they chose to buy and live in, one wonders if they are even considering the homeowner as a person and not an obstacle. > By definition? I call BS. Yes, by definition market value is the amount that must be paid to achieve a voluntary transaction on the market. Eminent domain forces a person out under threat of violence and pays an amount that the forcing party deems to be acceptable. If they were offering fair market value, by definition, they wouldn't have to threaten violence. > In fact, the Constitution requires "just compensation". I'm confident you understand that the constitution is a document and does not compel obedience to its words. Furthermore "just compensation" implies the question "just according to whom?" Its not a synonym for "market value." > Nice whine. So when I used a technical term correctly, you whined. Now I break it down into it technical components in a purely descriptive sense, so I'm not expecting you to know the meanings of technical terms, and you say I'm whining. What am I to make of this? > But in fact the government does have the right to do that, and for quite good reasons. Referring back to the question that started this discussion, when people are so callous about the manner in which government exercises its powers, it calls into questions whether those reasons are in fact very good. Minor quibble: governments have powers, people have rights. > And, if they make the tunnel, they're going to have to take different peoples' houses. Asserts facts not in evidence. The point of the tunnel is to go underneath extant structures. > On that point, I agree with you at least some of the time. glad to see I'm making my point.
webmaven 6y ago
> we're going to spend more money and create a tunnel. But money doesn't grow on trees for local governments; if they spend it, they have to take it. Perhaps the government needs to exercise fiscal discipline. Perhaps the government can't afford a new rail. What does 'afford' mean to you in this context? The money is always (well, almost always) going to come from taxes, a municipality or other local government can reduce services and infrastructure spending (opex and capex, roughly) and lower taxes, or increase services and infra spending and raise taxes.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Thanks for your reply. > What does 'afford' mean to you in this context? There's a budget that balances income and expenditures. The government can't afford things if the expenditures are more than the income, roughly speaking. > The money is always (well, almost always) going to come from taxes, a municipality or other local government can reduce services and infrastructure spending (opex and capex, roughly) and lower taxes, or increase services and infra spending and raise taxes. In this context (eminent domain seizures), they can also decide they want to put some infrastructure somewhere that is already in use, and instead of purchasing that real estate, they can use their power of eminent domain and expropriate the land from the people who had owned it. That costs less than purchasing it on the market because they compel obedience via threat of physical force.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    >> What does 'afford' mean to you in this context? > There's a budget that balances income and expenditures. The government can't afford things if the expenditures are more than the income, roughly speaking. Okay, so how does raising taxes to pay for something not count as 'affording' it?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Okay, so how does raising taxes to pay for something not count as 'affording' it? This is a bit of a digression because this began about eminent domain but I'll bite. Because taxes are coercive. The idea is that deciding that you need more money because you want something and don't have enough money for it, then telling people more is required of them because you want something you didn't want last year is prone to abuse and fails in the limit. Why don't we just raise taxes enough so that we could all retire? Money is a proxy for valuable goods and services. Raising taxes to pay for something is increasing the proportion of physical goods and services consumed by government. We can debate about what the proper proportion is but everyone should agree that there is a point where the government is consuming the maximum amount for the good of society and a further increase would be bad for society. At that point, we could agree that the government can not afford additional expenditures. A logical response is that certain expenditures increase the wealth of society and so the tax rate might increase, but there would be more goods and services available so society could afford to pay more taxes. This is potentially true but doesn't apply to every public work, so we could still agree that there is a point where government can't afford any more. Whether a given public work would in fact increase the wealth of society is a matter of discussion for members of that society.
mypalmike 6y ago
There's no "the government" building rail lines for itself because it's on a spending binge. These types of major construction projects come with specific budgets and planned sources of bond and tax-based funding, and are usually approved at the ballot box.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Thats orthogonal to the issue of expropriation. If they need more funding to buy the land for the project then so be it. If eminent domain is used to take land from people then it can be a bureaucratic decision or it could be a referendum. Its still the power of the state (or government) being applied to expropriate people because other people want their land for something but are unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to obtain their consent. This is prone to abuse and if the interests of the landowner are dismissed too readily then it suggests that the interests of the landowner aren't being given the proper weight.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Expropriate can mean taking by eminent domain, but it also can mean taking with no compensation whatsoever. And the context in which we (all right, I) most often hear the word is the latter - when a government takes property without paying for it, or paying only a pittance. Mea culpa, though: Until I looked at dictionary.com, I didn't know it could be used for eminent domain. > All I did was ask a question. "How can someone be so callous?" That's a question, but it's not just a question. It's pushing a viewpoint. > > Note that this is a completely separate discussion from whether eminent domain actually pays people market prices for their homes. > By definition, it does not. By definition? I call BS. In fact, the Constitution requires "just compensation". Now, have governments abused that, and actually offered less than just compensation? Of course. But "by definition"? No. > elides the relevant factor: people are being <strike>expropriated</strike> deprived of their homes through threat of violence in order to lower the cost of infrastructure. Nice whine. But in fact the government does have the right to do that, and for quite good reasons. And, if they make the tunnel, they're going to have to take different peoples' houses. > Perhaps the government needs to exercise fiscal discipline. Perhaps the government can't afford a new rail. On that point, I agree with you at least some of the time.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Expropriate can mean taking by eminent domain, but it also can mean taking with no compensation whatsoever. Yeah, it just means 'taking property.' It doesn't reference compensation. > "How can someone be so callous?" That's a question, but it's not just a question. It's pushing a viewpoint. Well it does imply that the person referenced is being callous towards the concerns of the property owners, which is why I asked the question. I'm not sure what viewpoint you think I'm pushing. I'm wondering how someone can be so dismissive of the concerns of a homeowner regarding the government depriving them of their home in a place they chose to live. They picked that house and that place for a variety of reasons then invested their time, their life, their families, and their money in that community. Then some bureaucrat says "we need this for <aquaducts>, get out or die. Here's a check." Its one thing to exercise your best judgment and believe that when the public interest is balanced against the private interest, this is the greater good. But when someone callously disregards the interest of the homeowner in the home and community they have chosen to be part of, it raises serious questions about whether their interests are actually being balanced fairly. When someone is casually dismissive of a person's interest in continuing to own the home that they chose to buy and live in, one wonders if they are even considering the homeowner as a person and not an obstacle. > By definition? I call BS. Yes, by definition market value is the amount that must be paid to achieve a voluntary transaction on the market. Eminent domain forces a person out under threat of violence and pays an amount that the forcing party deems to be acceptable. If they were offering fair market value, by definition, they wouldn't have to threaten violence. > In fact, the Constitution requires "just compensation". I'm confident you understand that the constitution is a document and does not compel obedience to its words. Furthermore "just compensation" implies the question "just according to whom?" Its not a synonym for "market value." > Nice whine. So when I used a technical term correctly, you whined. Now I break it down into it technical components in a purely descriptive sense, so I'm not expecting you to know the meanings of technical terms, and you say I'm whining. What am I to make of this? > But in fact the government does have the right to do that, and for quite good reasons. Referring back to the question that started this discussion, when people are so callous about the manner in which government exercises its powers, it calls into questions whether those reasons are in fact very good. Minor quibble: governments have powers, people have rights. > And, if they make the tunnel, they're going to have to take different peoples' houses. Asserts facts not in evidence. The point of the tunnel is to go underneath extant structures. > On that point, I agree with you at least some of the time. glad to see I'm making my point.

webmaven 6y ago

> we're going to spend more money and create a tunnel. But money doesn't grow on trees for local governments; if they spend it, they have to take it. Perhaps the government needs to exercise fiscal discipline. Perhaps the government can't afford a new rail. What does 'afford' mean to you in this context? The money is always (well, almost always) going to come from taxes, a municipality or other local government can reduce services and infrastructure spending (opex and capex, roughly) and lower taxes, or increase services and infra spending and raise taxes.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Thanks for your reply. > What does 'afford' mean to you in this context? There's a budget that balances income and expenditures. The government can't afford things if the expenditures are more than the income, roughly speaking. > The money is always (well, almost always) going to come from taxes, a municipality or other local government can reduce services and infrastructure spending (opex and capex, roughly) and lower taxes, or increase services and infra spending and raise taxes. In this context (eminent domain seizures), they can also decide they want to put some infrastructure somewhere that is already in use, and instead of purchasing that real estate, they can use their power of eminent domain and expropriate the land from the people who had owned it. That costs less than purchasing it on the market because they compel obedience via threat of physical force.
- webmaven 6y ago
  >> What does 'afford' mean to you in this context? > There's a budget that balances income and expenditures. The government can't afford things if the expenditures are more than the income, roughly speaking. Okay, so how does raising taxes to pay for something not count as 'affording' it?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Okay, so how does raising taxes to pay for something not count as 'affording' it? This is a bit of a digression because this began about eminent domain but I'll bite. Because taxes are coercive. The idea is that deciding that you need more money because you want something and don't have enough money for it, then telling people more is required of them because you want something you didn't want last year is prone to abuse and fails in the limit. Why don't we just raise taxes enough so that we could all retire? Money is a proxy for valuable goods and services. Raising taxes to pay for something is increasing the proportion of physical goods and services consumed by government. We can debate about what the proper proportion is but everyone should agree that there is a point where the government is consuming the maximum amount for the good of society and a further increase would be bad for society. At that point, we could agree that the government can not afford additional expenditures. A logical response is that certain expenditures increase the wealth of society and so the tax rate might increase, but there would be more goods and services available so society could afford to pay more taxes. This is potentially true but doesn't apply to every public work, so we could still agree that there is a point where government can't afford any more. Whether a given public work would in fact increase the wealth of society is a matter of discussion for members of that society.

mypalmike 6y ago

There's no "the government" building rail lines for itself because it's on a spending binge. These types of major construction projects come with specific budgets and planned sources of bond and tax-based funding, and are usually approved at the ballot box.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Thats orthogonal to the issue of expropriation. If they need more funding to buy the land for the project then so be it. If eminent domain is used to take land from people then it can be a bureaucratic decision or it could be a referendum. Its still the power of the state (or government) being applied to expropriate people because other people want their land for something but are unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to obtain their consent. This is prone to abuse and if the interests of the landowner are dismissed too readily then it suggests that the interests of the landowner aren't being given the proper weight.