Supreme Court OKs seizure of personal property for private economic development

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

*slaps forehead* Silly me, I had forgotten you only think about yourself and expect everyone should do so.

---

To think about themselves? Yes, I do. Integrity is the only moral basis for any moral decision.

Quote:

---

Also, last I checked, you do have an obligation to your state, which is to pay taxes.

---

Income tax is another anti-freedom, anti-individual conception. It taxes, penalizes you for maintaining your existence - and the more you make, the greater your obligation. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." How very closely our income tax and welfare systems today correlate with that evil doctrine really spooks me.

Quote:

---

It's bundled with all the "benefits" you can get (armed forces, police, jails...). I do not pay US taxes, I can't expect my opinion to count when laws are passed. Representation and taxation.

---

Those results are great - but the ends do not justify the means(if not, then to what lengths can't the means go?). There are other means of getting such money without penalizing ability.

If government can't obtain revenues by taxing people, then how exactly do you expect it to gain money?

Sales taxes are perfectly fine. There's also other means that have not been thought of. For instance, I read of a possibility to tax contracts - for a contract to be held binding in a court of law, the participants would have to pay a tax(which could either be a defined amount or a percentage of the money involved in the contract or both). This does not penalize the rich in itself, but the multimillion-dollar corporations would be much more likely to need court-binding contracts than the average person.

Basically, if you regard as evil the logic being Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, there's no possible way to justify either this Supreme Court decision or income tax or any sort of binding obligations to a body outside of the individual.

Also, the government wouldn't need so much money to begin with if they concentrated solely on their only moral purpose: the protection of individual rights. How much government money was wasted in those Congress meetings to change "french fries" to "freedom fries?"

I can agree with you on the "stop doing useless things" bit. I had a discussion with a friend awhile back and we concluded that the only valid purposes of government were: (1) protecting people from each other (which includes corporations and other countries), (2) educating the people, (3) ensuring that people have adequate health care, and (4) ensuring that people do not starve. Everything else should be limited to the private sector, and modern American government is vastly overextending itself in that respect.

however, I'm not sure I agree with you on progressive taxation. I've always thought that those who get more out of the community should be expected to put more into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Sales taxes are perfectly fine. There's also other means that have not been thought of. For instance, I read of a possibility to tax contracts - for a contract to be held binding in a court of law, the participants would have to pay a tax(which could either be a defined amount or a percentage of the money involved in the contract or both). This does not penalize the rich in itself, but the multimillion-dollar corporations would be much more likely to need court-binding contracts than the average person.

---

What happens in the case of a contract dispute if people didn't pay the "court binding" tax? They meet at dawn, and stop at first blood? Who pays the contract tax then? The seller? The buyer? And how much should the sales taxes be? Who pays the Federal gov't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Basically, if you regard as evil the logic being Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, there's no possible way to justify either this Supreme Court decision or income tax or any sort of binding obligations to a body outside of the individual.

---

I disagree with the SC's decision, yet I find it acceptable that sometimes (it's rare, I've seen it happen ONCE near where I live, when they made a new bridge (*)) when it's something that everyone has access to. As I said, roads, schools, hospitals. Taking someone's property to build a mall or an office complex is a big no. About the taxes, well, I'm aware how much of a deficit we have right now, and frankly, while I'm against raising it, I can say that there is no way the gov't can pay me (a civil servant) without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Also, the government wouldn't need so much money to begin with if they concentrated solely on their only moral purpose: the protection of individual rights. How much government money was wasted in those Congress meetings to change "french fries" to "freedom fries?"

---

Dunno about the fries, but otherwise yes, I agree. See, politicians are individuals who think about themselves first, and the public goes second. It's in their own private interest to allow lobbies to buy them out and do stupid things™.

(*) Some backstory: one of the properties that got kicked was a friend of my dad. The got compensated for their property, at the market value. however, that's not "just compensation". What annoyed my family about it wasn't that they were making a bridge, because it was really needed, but that market value doesn't count sentimental value. My dad friend's dad had lived there for tens of years, and for him the hardest part wasn't the money, it was the leaving the house he lived in for so long. I think there's a lot of progress to make here in the "compensation", like extra money, and since it doesn't buy happiness, some follow-up with a form of counselling to make the transition easier.

I agree that eminent domain payment should probably cover sentimental value, but I still agree with the practice as long as it's used for public works projects like hospitals, schools, or transportation.

So it's alright to take away freedom as long as it's for "public good?" The public is made up of individuals, and the individual is the one you're stealing property from.

Quote:

---

(1) protecting people from each other (which includes corporations and other countries), (2) educating the people, (3) ensuring that people have adequate health care, and (4) ensuring that people do not starve.

---

I agree with the first one. The only obligation of government is to protect the indisviduals' freedom from interference from violence(direct violence or indirect violence in the form of a threat). This includes: police, army, law courts. The rest is fine, as long as the money for it is not stolen. If the state wants to build a highway, put a toll there or raise sales taxes or whatever.

Quote:

---

however, I'm not sure I agree with you on progressive taxation. I've always thought that those who get more out of the community should be expected to put more into it.

---

How does the rich businessman, who employs 5,000 people, get more from the community than the community gets from him? Yet these are the people from whom a price is demanded - a tax on their existence.
Think about the contract tax - it could not be so easily evaded as income tax. Income can be hidden and files and numbers changed and pushed around.

Quote:

---

What happens in the case of a contract dispute if people didn't pay the "court binding" tax? They meet at dawn, and stop at first blood?

---

Then it wasn't legally binding. Their loss.

Quote:

---

Who pays the contract tax then? The seller? The buyer?

---

Either or both. That can be decided by each party.

Quote:

---

Who pays the Federal gov't?

---

The ferdeal government gets the money from the aforementioned taxtes.

Quote:

---

And how much should the sales taxes be?

---

Whatever the state legislature sets it at.

Quote:

---

I disagree with the SC's decision, yet I find it acceptable that sometimes (it's rare, I've seen it happen ONCE near where I live, when they made a new bridge (*)) when it's something that everyone has access to.

---

But what if the person doesn't want to sell? Is it so hard for the government to be forced to ask? "Ma'am, would you be willing to sell your house to the government for the purposes of building a new hospital? The price will be negotiable." Not only would it insure the person/family involved would get a fair price, it would also preserve freedom, which was supposed to be the premise of the US.

Losing one's house because the state wants to build a road is wrong, but a necessary evil. Losing one's house because somebody wants to make a Quickie Mart, and your land would be a nice parking lot is unacceptable. Between the loss of personal freedoms in the Patriot Acts, and the pretty much nonexistance of property rights with this new amendment (When can't the government forcibly take your property now?), there won't be much left. We can be arrested without cause and process as "terrorist suspects", and our land and houses can be taken at the whim of both the government and business. Simultaneously, our means of protest are being illegalized by a ban on flag burning. I imagine the next Constitutional Amendment will change the President's tenure from 4-8 years to a life long position, and replace elections with bloodline inheritence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

So it's alright to take away freedom as long as it's for "public good?" The public is made up of individuals, and the individual is the one you're stealing property from.

---

I see a distinction between property and freedom.

Atlanta, Georgia had a terrible traffic problem. Simply put, the city's road infrastructure was horribly equipped to deal with the three million or so people who live in or around the city. The city decided to build a new toll road straight through the centre of the city to its northern suburbs. To do this, they had to utilize eminent domain to buy people's property. All told, I think it cost several hundred million dollars, but they built the extension to State Road 400, and suddenly, the several-hour backups that used to occur on 75 and 85 no longer occur, or are significantly shorter. (eestlinc could probably attest to this better than I could, since he actually lives there).

If the government had not been allowed to utilize eminent domain, this would have never happened. Virtually everyone who lives or works in the city now has an hour or more shaved from their commute to work. Somehow, I think that's more important than the so-called right of a few businesses to remain in the same location.

Quote:

---

How does the rich businessman, who employs 5,000 people, get more from the community than the community gets from him? Yet these are the people from whom a price is demanded - a tax on their existence.

---

He buys mansions and yachts and what have you. Most of what he has, he only enjoys because he has people willing to work for him, who may not themselves be living in particularly decent conditions or even able to afford health care on their own. To me, that implies that he's getting a lot out of the community.

Quote:

---

Think about the contract tax - it could not be so easily evaded as income tax. Income can be hidden and files and numbers changed and pushed around.

---

This is true, but I still side with Raf on the problems with the contract tax. If people couldn't afford the contract tax, they'd probably just fight to the death or something (although in some people's cases, that might not be the worst thing ;-)). That said, I agree that there are a number of problems with the way the income tax system is implemented. It's full of loopholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Either or both. That can be decided by each party.

---

Now tell me why a seller would want to pay that tax? Sellers' obligations happen after the sale. Not paying the tax = not legally binding = profit. Only buyers would end up paying it. Let's not forget to add that to the higher sales taxes.
Or wait, maybe richer people would want to pay extra taxes to make sure the judge is on their side? Nah, it wouldn't happen, wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

The ferdeal government gets the money from the aforementioned taxtes.

---

Assuming enough people would pay for it and for big enough amounts.

Quote:

---

Whatever the state legislature sets it at.

---

They'll have to compensate for the loss of income tax. So, how much? 30%? 40%? Who, visiting the US, will want to pay that much? Bye bye tourists.

Quote:

---

But what if the person doesn't want to sell? Is it so hard for the government to be forced to ask? "Ma'am, would you be willing to sell your house to the government for the purposes of building a new hospital? The price will be negotiable." Not only would it insure the person/family involved would get a fair price, it would also preserve freedom, which was supposed to be the premise of the US.

---

Usually, here, and I suspect in most of the cases when the main infrastructures were built years and years ago, the city/state offered to buy first, then if they faced a refusal, would use the eminent domain. Going for it is facing extra paperwork (and time and paying civil servants/lawyers) and the possibility of the person going to the courts to contest it which means extra cost, so I don't see why local officials would go for the eminent domain directly (until that dumb SC decision that is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

Quote:

---

Whatever the state legislature sets it at.

---

They'll have to compensate for the loss of income tax. So, how much? 30%? 40%? Who, visiting the US, will want to pay that much? Bye bye tourists.

---

If the government is brought down to its proper form - i.e. the protection of individuals' rights - the sales tax would go down, not up. Only a looting government needs that much.

Quote:

---

Losing one's house because the state wants to build a road is wrong, but a necessary evil.

---

Why is it necessary? Because forcing the government to ask would ensure a fair price?

Quote:

---

I see a distinction between property and freedom.

---

There's no possible logical way to make that distinction. The right to your own life logically grants the right to the product of your life - your earnings and possesions. Without property rights there is no freedom.

Quote:

---

Atlanta, Georgia had a terrible traffic problem. Simply put, the city's road infrastructure was horribly equipped to deal with the three million or so people who live in or around the city. The city decided to build a new toll road straight through the centre of the city to its northern suburbs. To do this, they had to utilize eminent domain to buy people's property. All told, I think it cost several hundred million dollars, but they built the extension to State Road 400, and suddenly, the several-hour backups that used to occur on 75 and 85 no longer occur, or are significantly shorter. (eestlinc could probably attest to this better than I could, since he actually lives there).

---

A new road is great. Theft is not. The government could simply be forced to say, "Hey, would you be willing to sell your house for a new road/hospital/whatever? We could negotiate the price, and we would also help you find a new home." Is that so unreasonable?

Quote:

---

If the government had not been allowed to utilize eminent domain, this would have never happened. Virtually everyone who lives or works in the city now has an hour or more shaved from their commute to work. Somehow, I think that's more important than the so-called right of a few businesses to remain in the same location.

---

It's not just businessmen. It could just as easily be low-income families in a crowded part of a city that cannot afford to move out of the city and won't be able to find a new home. Either way - why does income have any effect on your decision?

Quote:

---

He buys mansions and yachts and what have you. Most of what he has, he only enjoys because he has people willing to work for him, who may not themselves be living in particularly decent conditions or even able to afford health care on their own. To me, that implies that he's getting a lot out of the community.

---

Oh give me a break. So the community has a claim on him? He has an "obligation" to the community - a greater obligation than anyone else, because he does more? Do you even realize the disgusting nature of what you're saying?

Quote:

---

Now tell me why a seller would want to pay that tax? Sellers' obligations happen after the sale. Not paying the tax = not legally binding = profit. Only buyers would end up paying it. Let's not forget to add that to the higher sales taxes.
Or wait, maybe richer people would want to pay extra taxes to make sure the judge is on their side? Nah, it wouldn't happen, wouldn't it?

---

Well, if no buyers would pay for it, the seller couldn't sell, now could he? So the seller has the option of either paying all/part of it, or shopping around until he finds a buyer that will. How is that different than any other level of a competitive, free market?

Quote:

---

Assuming enough people would pay for it and for big enough amounts.

---

Big coorporations would have to - otherwise, they'd have to leverage in court if their employeers or buyers completely screwed them over.

Quote:

---

They'll have to compensate for the loss of income tax. So, how much? 30%? 40%? Who, visiting the US, will want to pay that much? Bye bye tourists.

---

Not if they stopped spending tons of money on things they shouldn't be. Plus, the contract-tax idea is only one possible example. The states could still have toll booths, political fundraising, charities, etc.

Quote:

---

Usually, here, and I suspect in most of the cases when the main infrastructures were built years and years ago, the city/state offered to buy first, then if they faced a refusal, would use the eminent domain. Going for it is facing extra paperwork (and time and paying civil servants/lawyers) and the possibility of the person going to the courts to contest it which means extra cost, so I don't see why local officials would go for the eminent domain directly (until that dumb SC decision that is).

---

Unless they want a new road or something else for the "public good" nonsense. If it really is for the better, then the state should be able to find a home-owner willing to sell, if it's truly in their best interest. But it's not necessarily for that house-owner's or business-owner's best interest - your forcing them to finance something they may not agree with. That's theft by force - an infringement on freedom.

Quote:

---

If the government is brought down to its proper form - i.e. the protection of individuals' rights - the sales tax would go down, not up. Only a looting government needs that much.

---

Amen. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Why is it necessary? Because forcing the government to ask would ensure a fair price?

---

And maybe they did ask a fair price and faced a refusal?

Quote:

---

Well, if no buyers would pay for it, the seller couldn't sell, now could he? So the seller has the option of either paying all/part of it, or shopping around until he finds a buyer that will. How is that different than any other level of a competitive, free market?

---

I think you mixed up buyer and seller. :p The difference is that some of the rules of competition are enforced by the law, and automatically actionnable in courts if need be, because people (usually the sellers) have a natural interest in leaving competition to go wander in (quasi)monopolies. At that point (if it's not automatical anymore), it's easy for the few competitors to agree not to pay the court tax ever. Buyers won't have a choice, since they'll never find a seller that's willing to pay even a part of it. Buyers will have to pay the tax or risk being screwed over.
I see you forgot to address the possibility that judges become biased in favor of who pays the most court tax too.

Quote:

---

Not if they stopped spending tons of money on things they shouldn't be. Plus, the contract-tax idea is only one possible example. The states could still have toll booths, political fundraising, charities, etc.

---

"Political fundraising". xD You mean lobbying?

Quote:

---

Unless they want a new road or something else for the "public good" nonsense. If it really is for the better, then the state should be able to find a home-owner willing to sell, if it's truly in their best interest. But it's not necessarily for that house-owner's or business-owner's best interest - your forcing them to finance something they may not agree with. That's theft by force - an infringement on freedom.

---

No, economically (rationally, if fact), everyone's best choice is never to help finance public goods and be what we call in economics a "free rider". If everyone is purely rational, you'll never see a new road, new hospitals, new schools... if you're interested, I'll try to write down the mathematical proof.

Quote:

---

If the government is brought down to its proper form - i.e. the protection of individuals' rights - the sales tax would go down, not up. Only a looting government needs that much.

---

And as I posted a bit before:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

See, politicians are individuals who think about themselves first, and the public goes second. It's in their own private interest to allow lobbies to buy them out and do stupid things™.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garland

Losing one's house because the state wants to build a road is wrong, but a necessary evil. Losing one's house because somebody wants to make a Quickie Mart, and your land would be a nice parking lot is unacceptable. Between the loss of personal freedoms in the Patriot Acts, and the pretty much nonexistance of property rights with this new amendment (When can't the government forcibly take your property now?), there won't be much left. We can be arrested without cause and process as "terrorist suspects", and our land and houses can be taken at the whim of both the government and business. Simultaneously, our means of protest are being illegalized by a ban on flag burning. I imagine the next Constitutional Amendment will change the President's tenure from 4-8 years to a life long position, and replace elections with bloodline inheritence.

---

the last statement there is taking it to the next level but who knows you can never really trust the republicans anyway.

I'm pretty sure he's exaggerating, really. ;)