6 ms·

> government would waste no time in getting land that it needed by blackmailing, intimidation, and literally murder by bulldozing houses with people in them wh

> government would waste no time in getting land that it needed by blackmailing, intimidation, and literally murder by bulldozing houses with people in them when they refuse to leave

robinjhuang 5y ago
I think this is a question worth asking. Should we let a small number of people hold hostage over public projects?
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  Do you say that applies to pipeline projects too?
  - robinjhuang 5y ago
    Oil gas pipelines? Sure. The reason I say this is because it seems to me that democracy is a system designed to favor the majority over the minority. So why not for public projects?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    That depends on how you're defining "small number of people". If a big fraction of the people in the way of a segment object, then that's probably not small. If a couple family farms object, then that's not very important.
- nouveaux 5y ago
  This is a good question. Where do we draw the line at human rights? Should land ownership be a protected right? It would cost a lot less if the government just took the land instead of paying fair market value. It would also cost a lot less if we forced all criminals to work for free (though right now, they practically work for free). The problem is that we would quickly run out of criminals since there are so many projects that needs work. We could just randomly enslave people to do work for free. Enslaving citizens wouldn't be fair or popular with the citizens of our country. Another option is to use our military might to subjugate other countries and bring them over to work, say to work on our farms. That would allow for very high gdp growth. So where do we draw the line and who gets to draw that line?
  - BlargMcLarg 5y ago
    We draw the line where there's an obvious problem. For every reductio ad absurdum looking at slavery and trying to put down another country's citizens at the benefit of our own, there is a counterexample looking at how ridiculous it is we have ultra-rich deciding their little game of looking at numbers going up and people living in McMansions just to show off being more important than a giant middle class unable to afford housing where their grandfathers and grandmothers could living a lower class lifestyle. Surely somewhere we can accept that a bunch of wealthy playing the investment game on very limited resources instead of the realm of producing solutions or improvements isn't the way to further society as a whole. We don't have to put down those already in the ditches further, we got a swat of people above to look at.
    - nouveaux 5y ago
      I think we both agree that we shouldn't be protecting the wealthy. I just think we should do it another way. IMO, high housing prices exist because of the lack of supply. I think it's possible for the government to increase housing stock and have reasonable property rights.
  - xvector 5y ago
    There is a balance between letting a single individual stall progress for all of society, and respecting human rights. A single individual certainly should not be able to block the construction of a public transit system that will bring jobs and improve the livelihood of millions. At the same time, the government can provide reasonable alternative accommodations or pay market value (not decided by the individual in question.) Eliminating NIMBYism and individuals' selfish obstinacy does not need to lead to a global hegemony enslaving billions.
  - amrocha 5y ago
    "Property rights" are not human rights, stop conflating the 2. And the absurd examples you tried to come up with are literally things the US is doing today, you're just being sinophobic.
    - deleted 5y ago
- jdasdf 5y ago
  Offer to pay them what they want.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    That's an awful solution. Some small fraction of people in the way shouldn't get an enormous multiplier over market value, in some kind of giant prisoner's dilemma auction. If you offer the group a certain percentage of market value, that could work out well. But unanimous consensus is not a reasonable way to get land for big public projects.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > an enormous multiplier over market value “Market value” requires willing participants. If a seller doesn’t want to sell at a particular price and the good isn’t fungible (which housing is not), they aren’t getting market value by being forced to sell at a price determined solely by the buyer.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Do you want me to say "taxable value*" instead? If you think it's impossible to assess the value of a property, the whole legal world disagrees with you. And yeah, the point of eminent domain is to force the sale on unwilling participants. If used sparingly and without discrimination, it's a good power, and part of living in a community that will undertake community projects. * the underlying assessed value, excluding artificial caps like prop 13
        mensetmanusman 5y ago
        It seems difficult to asses land value when it seems to have inflated 100% in 10 years.
        kortilla 5y ago
        Sure, go with “taxable value”, but let’s not pretend it’s market value any more than the market value of a human life is what an insurance company values it at.
- dixie_land 5y ago
  > Should we let a small number of people hold hostage over public projects? I think by phrasing the holdouts as "hold hostage over public projects" is misguided if not disingenuous. This is a common propaganda used by authoritarian regimes to paint anyone they don't like in a bad light: surely they're not victims of government brutality if they're "enemies of the common good." But if we accept we can discard one individual's (or a small group of individuals') rights, then it's not long before everyone's rights become disposable. That's how people like Putin and Xi justifies their aggression (surely I can kill millions of people in Taiwan if it stands in the way of "progress" of 1.3 billion mainlanders!) P.S. As someone as pointed out, this is not a China/US or eastern/western issue. The U.S. has its own fair share of blatant violation of private rights too. But my point is that it's wrong when U.S. does it, it's wrong when China does it, it's wrong when anyone does it and it shouldn't be something we aspire to.
qiskit 5y ago
> by blackmailing, intimidation, and literally murder by bulldozing houses with people in them when they refuse to leave That doesn't explain nail houses though... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china-nail-houses-in-pictures-property-development https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  That explains them though.
winrid 5y ago
Source? I have relatives in China that got paid to leave their house last year. They had actually just built it, but the local government offered enough to build 3 more, so they took it.
- dixie_land 5y ago
  Here's one from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/893113807/china-speeds-up-drive-to-pave-rural-villages-put-up-high-rises https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/893113807/china-speeds-up-dri... and simple Google searches yield many results. Undoubtedly some people greatly benefited from the land purchase, when such offers are made. I've also heard of stories (friend of a friend kinda, I do not directly know one) of people actually getting rich (not middle class, like rich rich) by having properties in areas that the government happens to like. (more so in suburbs of big cities like Shanghai or Shenzhen) However the point is even one forced eviction is one too many and the people who come out better for it (good for them) does not justify the poor treatment of people who simply dare to say no to the communist party.
  - winrid 5y ago
    Well, I've had cops break into my house in the US and mace my sister and I when we were little. So, I won't say I stand on much of a high ground here in the US. But yes, local governments in China should do better with this kind of thing.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      That’s not the same thing at all unless the cops also stole your house and never let you return.
      - nosianu 5y ago
        Like asset seizure? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/09/01/police-seized-couples-cash-they-couldnt-get-it-back-until-they-went-public/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/09/01/police-seiz... https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/s...

> government would waste no time in getting land that it needed by blackmailing, intimidation, and literally murder by bulldozing houses with people in them when they refuse to leave

robinjhuang 5y ago

I think this is a question worth asking. Should we let a small number of people hold hostage over public projects?

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
Do you say that applies to pipeline projects too?
- robinjhuang 5y ago
  Oil gas pipelines? Sure. The reason I say this is because it seems to me that democracy is a system designed to favor the majority over the minority. So why not for public projects?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  That depends on how you're defining "small number of people". If a big fraction of the people in the way of a segment object, then that's probably not small. If a couple family farms object, then that's not very important.
nouveaux 5y ago
This is a good question. Where do we draw the line at human rights? Should land ownership be a protected right? It would cost a lot less if the government just took the land instead of paying fair market value. It would also cost a lot less if we forced all criminals to work for free (though right now, they practically work for free). The problem is that we would quickly run out of criminals since there are so many projects that needs work. We could just randomly enslave people to do work for free. Enslaving citizens wouldn't be fair or popular with the citizens of our country. Another option is to use our military might to subjugate other countries and bring them over to work, say to work on our farms. That would allow for very high gdp growth. So where do we draw the line and who gets to draw that line?
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  We draw the line where there's an obvious problem. For every reductio ad absurdum looking at slavery and trying to put down another country's citizens at the benefit of our own, there is a counterexample looking at how ridiculous it is we have ultra-rich deciding their little game of looking at numbers going up and people living in McMansions just to show off being more important than a giant middle class unable to afford housing where their grandfathers and grandmothers could living a lower class lifestyle. Surely somewhere we can accept that a bunch of wealthy playing the investment game on very limited resources instead of the realm of producing solutions or improvements isn't the way to further society as a whole. We don't have to put down those already in the ditches further, we got a swat of people above to look at.
  - nouveaux 5y ago
    I think we both agree that we shouldn't be protecting the wealthy. I just think we should do it another way. IMO, high housing prices exist because of the lack of supply. I think it's possible for the government to increase housing stock and have reasonable property rights.
- xvector 5y ago
  There is a balance between letting a single individual stall progress for all of society, and respecting human rights. A single individual certainly should not be able to block the construction of a public transit system that will bring jobs and improve the livelihood of millions. At the same time, the government can provide reasonable alternative accommodations or pay market value (not decided by the individual in question.) Eliminating NIMBYism and individuals' selfish obstinacy does not need to lead to a global hegemony enslaving billions.
- amrocha 5y ago
  "Property rights" are not human rights, stop conflating the 2. And the absurd examples you tried to come up with are literally things the US is doing today, you're just being sinophobic.
  - deleted 5y ago
jdasdf 5y ago
Offer to pay them what they want.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  That's an awful solution. Some small fraction of people in the way shouldn't get an enormous multiplier over market value, in some kind of giant prisoner's dilemma auction. If you offer the group a certain percentage of market value, that could work out well. But unanimous consensus is not a reasonable way to get land for big public projects.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > an enormous multiplier over market value “Market value” requires willing participants. If a seller doesn’t want to sell at a particular price and the good isn’t fungible (which housing is not), they aren’t getting market value by being forced to sell at a price determined solely by the buyer.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      Do you want me to say "taxable value*" instead? If you think it's impossible to assess the value of a property, the whole legal world disagrees with you. And yeah, the point of eminent domain is to force the sale on unwilling participants. If used sparingly and without discrimination, it's a good power, and part of living in a community that will undertake community projects. * the underlying assessed value, excluding artificial caps like prop 13
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        It seems difficult to asses land value when it seems to have inflated 100% in 10 years.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        Sure, go with “taxable value”, but let’s not pretend it’s market value any more than the market value of a human life is what an insurance company values it at.
dixie_land 5y ago
> Should we let a small number of people hold hostage over public projects? I think by phrasing the holdouts as "hold hostage over public projects" is misguided if not disingenuous. This is a common propaganda used by authoritarian regimes to paint anyone they don't like in a bad light: surely they're not victims of government brutality if they're "enemies of the common good." But if we accept we can discard one individual's (or a small group of individuals') rights, then it's not long before everyone's rights become disposable. That's how people like Putin and Xi justifies their aggression (surely I can kill millions of people in Taiwan if it stands in the way of "progress" of 1.3 billion mainlanders!) P.S. As someone as pointed out, this is not a China/US or eastern/western issue. The U.S. has its own fair share of blatant violation of private rights too. But my point is that it's wrong when U.S. does it, it's wrong when China does it, it's wrong when anyone does it and it shouldn't be something we aspire to.

qiskit 5y ago

> by blackmailing, intimidation, and literally murder by bulldozing houses with people in them when they refuse to leave That doesn't explain nail houses though... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china-nail-houses-in-pictures-property-development https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
That explains them though.

winrid 5y ago

Source? I have relatives in China that got paid to leave their house last year. They had actually just built it, but the local government offered enough to build 3 more, so they took it.

dixie_land 5y ago
Here's one from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/893113807/china-speeds-up-drive-to-pave-rural-villages-put-up-high-rises https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/893113807/china-speeds-up-dri... and simple Google searches yield many results. Undoubtedly some people greatly benefited from the land purchase, when such offers are made. I've also heard of stories (friend of a friend kinda, I do not directly know one) of people actually getting rich (not middle class, like rich rich) by having properties in areas that the government happens to like. (more so in suburbs of big cities like Shanghai or Shenzhen) However the point is even one forced eviction is one too many and the people who come out better for it (good for them) does not justify the poor treatment of people who simply dare to say no to the communist party.
- winrid 5y ago
  Well, I've had cops break into my house in the US and mace my sister and I when we were little. So, I won't say I stand on much of a high ground here in the US. But yes, local governments in China should do better with this kind of thing.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    That’s not the same thing at all unless the cops also stole your house and never let you return.
    - nosianu 5y ago
      Like asset seizure? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/09/01/police-seized-couples-cash-they-couldnt-get-it-back-until-they-went-public/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/09/01/police-seiz... https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/s...