Supreme Court OKs seizure of personal property for private economic development

[Raistlin]

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

Then tough. Go find somewhere else. If you accept the basic premise of freedom, then the government has NO RIGHT to infringe upon the freedom of choice(and there is no other freedom). Taking away choice is evil - always.

I think you mixed up buyer and seller. 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.

Then the buyers don't buy, and the sellers are forced to drop.
Judges can ALWAYS be biased. This is why we have an Ethics Committee.

"Political fundraising". xD You mean lobbying?

If that's what you want to call it. But if the government's broken down into its only true purpose(protection of individual rights), then there won't be a whole lot to lobby for.

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.

That's the choice for the individual to make. "How bad do I want a road here? Is the money offered for my house a fair price? Do I have somewhere to live as I look for a new house? Can I find a new house? Would this truly make things better for me?" The individual must have the choice to answer those questions for themselves. A person cannot be forced to finance something he does not want/does not agree with - to do so is to trample over the idea of freedom.

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™.

Yes, but if the government is broken down so it can only fulfill its only moral purpose, it won't be allowed to do "stupid things."

[Endless]

I think that you, like communists, albeit with a very different outcome, take people for perfect angels that will never abuse the system for their own personal fulfillment. As soon as there is a governemt, any form of it, there is potential for corruption. You talk about an ethics commitee, but isn't that the most subjective notion you can use to measure a judge's actions? How do you define ethics? Is it unethical to trade a favorable judgement against (a huge bag of) money that overall will make the system work?

Then the buyers don't buy, and the sellers are forced to drop.

Let's pretend the gas sellers did it. Where will you get your gas from? Drive to Canada/Mexico?



About the free rider thing, that's regardless of whether there would be a need for private property to be taken or not. It works for public lighting for example.

The individual must have the choice to answer those questions for themselves. A person cannot be forced to finance something he does not want/does not agree with - to do so is to trample over the idea of freedom.

But what if he wants a new road to go to work? Except he'd like it on his neighbor's garden/money. Said neighbor thinks it would work fine on that other guy's property/money, and so and so forth. They all want it, but "not on my property/money". When is the road gonna appear? Never. At the microeconomic level, it makes sense, each behaved like a good homo oeconomicus. At the macroeconomic level, it doesn't make sense anymore.

[Raistlin]

I think that you, like communists, albeit with a very different outcome, take people for perfect angels that will never abuse the system for their own personal fulfillment. As soon as there is a governemt, any form of it, there is potential for corruption.

Of course. But if you limit the power of what the government can do, that would also limit the ability of corrupt officials. Whether they're angels or not, it wouldn't significantly matter. This would, consequently, potentially keep "corrupt" officials out of office, since they'd lose a lot of their motivation(since they couldn't do much).

Let's pretend the gas sellers did it. Where will you get your gas from? Drive to Canada/Mexico?

huh?

About the free rider thing, that's regardless of whether there would be a need for private property to be taken or not. It works for public lighting for example.

Again: what?

But what if he wants a new road to go to work? Except he'd like it on his neighbor's garden/money. Said neighbor thinks it would work fine on that other guy's property/money, and so and so forth. They all want it, but "not on my property/money". When is the road gonna appear? Never. At the microeconomic level, it makes sense, each behaved like a good homo oeconomicus. At the macroeconomic level, it doesn't make sense anymore.

Then it doesn't get built. But if it's truly worthwhile for everybody, then they'll find some people willing to sell for a certain price. Freedom is more important than a road.

[Endless]

Let's pretend the gas sellers did it. Where will you get your gas from? Drive to Canada/Mexico?

huh?

Remember, just, what? two posts above, the talk about the court tax not being paid by sellers? If gas sellers all agree not to pay that tax, how are buyers going to do? Either everyone learns to do without cars, boats and planes, or they all swallow the bitter pill of paying for that tax. Or they risk getting screwed over. They won't have a choice anymore.

About the free rider thing, that's regardless of whether there would be a need for private property to be taken or not. It works for public lighting for example.

Again: what?

Same as above, you just need to read the post before. Let me explain the public lighting problem. Public lighting is a public good, non exclusive. Everyone can benefit from it. Using the light is free. However, electricity, installation and upkeep has to be paid for. Now, who, in his right rational mind, is going to pay for something they will get for free? If I think rationally, as long as someone pays, I'll get light in the streets. Do I want to be the one that pays the light for everyone? Of course not, so I'm not going to give a dime for it. So, either there has to be someone that's irrational (!) for the lights to be paid for, or the city can levy a tax (!!).

But what if he wants a new road to go to work? Except he'd like it on his neighbor's garden/money. Said neighbor thinks it would work fine on that other guy's property/money, and so and so forth. They all want it, but "not on my property/money". When is the road gonna appear? Never. At the microeconomic level, it makes sense, each behaved like a good homo oeconomicus. At the macroeconomic level, it doesn't make sense anymore.

Then it doesn't get built. But if it's truly worthwhile for everybody, then they'll find some people willing to sell for a certain price. Freedom is more important than a road.

If people thought like you, well, I doubt I would have ever visited the US, since there would NEVER have been an airport made. NEVER. All that the neighborhoods get is noise (and some pollution). I know I know, you don't give a damn about the economic effects at large, or the possibility to travel around the world, etc...
But wait, maybe you should give back the land to the Indians? I mean, that was some nice respect of their freedom back then. Or is it some kind of "yes, we smurfed things and people up before, but trust us, we're not going to do it anymore, promise with an aura above my head"?

Edit: "smurf people up" cracks me up, btw. xD

[Raistlin]

Remember, just, what? two posts above, the talk about the court tax not being paid by sellers? If gas sellers all agree not to pay that tax, how are buyers going to do? Either everyone learns to do without cars, boats and planes, or they all swallow the bitter pill of paying for that tax. Or they risk getting screwed over. They won't have a choice anymore.

And read my comment in my last post: if none of the buyers don't, then the sellers don't sell anything. The sellers need to sell and the buyers need to buy - by that basic concept, an agreement will be made, either way.

Same as above, you just need to read the post before. Let me explain the public lighting problem. Public lighting is a public good, non exclusive. Everyone can benefit from it. Using the light is free. However, electricity, installation and upkeep has to be paid for. Now, who, in his right rational mind, is going to pay for something they will get for free? If I think rationally, as long as someone pays, I'll get light in the streets. Do I want to be the one that pays the light for everyone? Of course not, so I'm not going to give a dime for it. So, either there has to be someone that's irrational (!) for the lights to be paid for, or the city can levy a tax (!!).

Why not just have privitization of lighting? The government has no business messing with it. People can pay the electricity company directly.

If people thought like you, well, I doubt I would have ever visited the US, since there would NEVER have been an airport made. NEVER. All that the neighborhoods get is noise (and some pollution). I know I know, you don't give a damn about the economic effects at large, or the possibility to travel around the world, etc...
But wait, maybe you should give back the land to the Indians? I mean, that was some nice respect of their freedom back then. Or is it some kind of "yes, we smurfed things and people up before, but trust us, we're not going to do it anymore, promise with an aura above my head"?

Are you defending our slaughter of the Indians? I think that was wrong by any moral standard. Even someone like you - who thinks any end justifies the means - should realize that.

I am nobody's slave. I am not obligated to look after my neighbor(though I may by choice), I am not a slave of my government or my country(though I may support them by choice). You're arguing by the same logic that Stalin used to justify murder by the thousands - the "end justifies the means" for the "greater good." It's nonsense.

[Endless]

And read my comment in my last post: if none of the buyers don't, then the sellers don't sell anything. The sellers need to sell and the buyers need to buy - by that basic concept, an agreement will be made, either way.

Assymetries exist, Raist. There are cases where the buyers have absolutely no choice but to accept whatever conditions the seller(s) puts forward. In that example of gas, people need gas, to go to work, to fly planes and to have boats transport goods all over the world. The gas market can (county wise if I take the US example) easily be locked down and people won't have a choice if they want to be able to go to work. The US is big enough that it would be fairly impractical, but take a small country, like France, Spain, Portugal. In that case, a country wide lock down is possible. That's why you need autorities to enforce competition rules, so that markets with few sellers don't turn into cartels or de facto monopolies. We had that problem with banks and credit, they all agreeed on certain pricing conditions that, for the lambda guy was quite unjustitfied. How can people have a choice then? they need to take loans, and all the banks agreed to offer pretty much the same thing. Where's the competition? Gone. But rationally, it was the banks' best course of action, to say "screw competition, let's all act like a cartel".

Why not just have privitization of lighting? The government has no business messing with it. People can pay the electricity company directly.

Hahaha xD
Who pays? People who walk in the street? How much? Proportionally to how much they walked, maybe? A flat fee, regardless of whether they went out that night or not? Or we put little coin slots and you have to put a cent to light the street, and hope that the other 50 guys will be honest and pay too and won't just follow you and never put a cent?

[Edit: read this to learn more about this problem.]

Are you defending our slaughter of the Indians? I think that was wrong by any moral standard. Even someone like you - who thinks any end justifies the means - should realize that.

That's what I'm saying: it was a very ty thing yet I don't see the US going to give all that land back any time soon (or at any time). Factually, if in the past the US (and Europe, too) hadn't forgotten about other people's freedom (be it for the land, for airports, roads, ...), would we be arguing today? What tells me that it's not going to happen again? I mean, over 3000 years of History show that we, humans, are like that. Sometimes we follow ideals of peace and freedom, and sometimes we forget it (luckily we follow them much more than we forget). I'm not saying it's good, no, I'm saying it is a fact.

I am nobody's slave. I am not obligated to look after my neighbor(though I may by choice), I am not a slave of my government or my country(though I may support them by choice). You're arguing by the same logic that Stalin used to justify murder by the thousands - the "end justifies the means" for the "greater good." It's nonsense.

But by what you've been saying, if people really value their self-worth above all, they'll never choose to look after their neighbor (minus maybe times of war). Same with the government (in general), if you know it'll still be here whether you support it or not, are you going to choose to pay for it?

[Raistlin]

I had this all typed out from work, but I didn't click the "Remember me" box when I logged in, so by the time I finished typing it(after a couple of delays from phone calls, etc. - "actual work"), I had timed out, and lost everything when I tried to post. So I may be a bit more brief. xD

About the contract tax: That is only ONE possible example. Even so, if the gas companies form a monopoly agreeing not to pay the tax and to raise prices, that leaves the door wide open for another company to form willing to pay the tax and offer lower prices - which would force the others to lower prices, etc. Competition wins out in a free market.

I mean, over 3000 years of History show that we, humans, are like that. Sometimes we follow ideals of peace and freedom, and sometimes we forget it (luckily we follow them much more than we forget). I'm not saying it's good, no, I'm saying it is a fact.

At least you're admitting that this sort of thing violates freedom. Yes, it has been that way in the past - but always by choice. We don't go along with freedom for a while, then the next generation is born with genes that promote dictatorships. You choose to follow freedom, or you don't - I'm merely showing why you should.

But by what you've been saying, if people really value their self-worth above all, they'll never choose to look after their neighbor (minus maybe times of war).

Not at all. Have you no concept of people doing anything for any reason other than their being forced to? I may have befriended my neighbor, I may like his dog, or I may just like looking at his house or garden; whatever my reasons, I must choose to help him(or choose not to), or else freedom is ripped apart. Freedom and force are contradictions - they are mutually exclusive.

You're saying that the "ends justify the means." But if so, where does that end? Murder is justified, as long as it clears the way for public property; slavery is justified if those enslaved fight for the country(how do you feel about drafts? If you disagree with them, you contradict yourself); theft is justified if it is done for the "public good." What is the public? Is it everybody within a specific area? But not everybody uses a new road, or a new bridge. Then what is it? Is it some undefinable, intangible body over the individuals? If you can't define the term, how does the phrase "public good" even have any meaning? "This is done for JKSGDUF398DSFS!#." Does that make any more or less sense?
The "public" is merely a collection of individuals. Check the "needs of the masses vs. the needs of the individual" in EoEO - that thread supports pretty much everything I've said here. If the public is merely a collection of individuals, then the "good of the public" must be in the best interest of every individual. The only common interest every individual has is freedom. Therefore, logically, the only moral purpose for the government is to ensure freedom for everybody - by the exclusion of the initiation of force from human relationships. The logical conclusion of freedom is that no person has the right to initiate the use of force - this includes the government. Only retalitory force(self-defense, throwing someone in jail) is acceptable.

Force and freedom are opposites. Once a government legalizes the initation of force to seize private property by subjective whim(for the good of the undefinable "public") or to steal private income by equally subjective whim, it loses any right to proclaim freedom - it becomes a dictatorship. Such was evolution of Soviet Russia and other communist nations.

If the government was limited back to its only moral purpose - to protect individual rights, then it wouldn't need all this looted money from the people, and could go without income tax entirely - if necessary, resorting to other means of fund-raising(other means of taxation not based on income, charities, etc.). Also, those areas bereft of public funds, may even benefit from privitization. Privitization encourages competition, and competition encourages development - in a free nation. Such is the sound principle of capitalism. Note that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the degree of freedom of a country was proportional to its economic, industrial, and technological growth. The United States, by far the freest, achieved the most. Now, ever since the introduction of the welfare state, the degree of freedom is lowering, and the US is losing its standing as the industrial powerhouse. Not to say that the US is not the freest country(which it is) or probably still the leading economic, technological, and industrial nation(which it probably is in every respect) - but that it doesn't have such a huge lead anymore. With public education, public welfare, public social security - things are stagnating. This is no coincidence.

Freedom and force cannot coexist. I cannot go up to my neighbor, take out a gun, and demand he hand over his income or his property; why can the government do so to me? When a government claims a right on the life of every person in it, it turns from a free government to a dictatorship - ruler by force. There can be no compromise where freedom - the right to your life - is concerned.


Ah well. I'm leaving for the weekend. This'll be my last post in this thread. If you still don't understand this, I can't say anything else. I laid it all down right there, with its choices: good or evil, freedom or force, the individual or the imaginary "public," development or stagnation, individual achievement or mass-slavery, a government serving the people("by the people, of the people, for the people" - Abraham Lincoln), or a people serving the government(as in Nazi Germany). Those are the only choices.

[Endless]

About the contract tax: That is only ONE possible example. Even so, if the gas companies form a monopoly agreeing not to pay the tax and to raise prices, that leaves the door wide open for another company to form willing to pay the tax and offer lower prices - which would force the others to lower prices, etc. Competition wins out in a free market.

Again, not always. Screwing competition rules is a rational behavior.

At least you're admitting that this sort of thing violates freedom.

Yes, it has been that way in the past - but always by choice. We don't go along with freedom for a while, then the next generation is born with genes that promote dictatorships. You choose to follow freedom, or you don't - I'm merely showing why you should.

So let's take... hmm, the Civil War. Assuming it was mostly about slavery, the Union's intents were good. However, doing so heavily trampled the right to live of the Confederationists. I mean, people from Atlanta certainly deserved to see their city burnt to the ground? I don't think so. So, whose freedom goes first? The slaves' or the slave owners'? Anyway, after that time of war, were the people suddenly craving for dictatorship? Was Grant a dictator?
Let's take French history, it's even funnier. after the 1789 revolution, which was a movement trying to restore freedom to the people. People were craving/fighting for freedom. Result: two terrors and Bonaparte.

Not at all. Have you no concept of people doing anything for any reason other than their being forced to?

Altruism, yes. But altruism is irrational. It means you value someone else's well being equal or above to yours to some aspects, which would mean you don't value your own life as much as you should.

I may have befriended my neighbor, I may like his dog, or I may just like looking at his house or garden; whatever my reasons, I must choose to help him(or choose not to), or else freedom is ripped apart. Freedom and force are contradictions - they are mutually exclusive.

See, pure altruism, however as idealistic as your world of logic (pure egoism?), would mean that people don't feel it like an infringement of their freedom. Different axioms, different conclusions.

You're saying that the "ends justify the means."

No. Not in that absolutist black & white vision of the world you have. What I am saying is that individuals sometimes, thinking about themselves, don't achieve as good an individual situation as they could, because there are limits to our capacity to reason (you should read Herbert Simon, it's really interesting), and that at times, a form of central action is necessary. Public lighting is such an example.

But if so, where does that end? Murder is justified, as long as it clears the way for public property;

Where did I say that?

slavery is justified if those enslaved fight for the country(how do you feel about drafts? If you disagree with them, you contradict yourself);

See above. For the record, I disagree with both, because I value human life (not just mine) above private property.

theft is justified if it is done for the "public good."

Not always. It's highly contextual, you see.

What is the public? Is it everybody within a specific area? But not everybody uses a new road, or a new bridge. Then what is it? Is it some undefinable, intangible body over the individuals? If you can't define the term, how does the phrase "public good" even have any meaning? "This is done for JKSGDUF398DSFS!#." Does that make any more or less sense?

The "public", I guess, could be defined as the opposite of the individual. Again, it's contextual. The army defense benefits to everyone in the country, the national guard to the state, the county police to the county... The public, accoring to the dictionary, is "The community or the people as a whole.", and obviously, the community is relative to the interests at hand, liken hospital concerns people around a certain area, street lighting concerns people in some part of the city.

The "public" is merely a collection of individuals. Check the "needs of the masses vs. the needs of the individual" in EoEO - that thread supports pretty much everything I've said here. If the public is merely a collection of individuals, then the "good of the public" must be in the best interest of every individual. The only common interest every individual has is freedom.

His own freedom.

Therefore, logically, the only moral purpose for the government is to ensure freedom for everybody - by the exclusion of the initiation of force from human relationships. The logical conclusion of freedom is that no person has the right to initiate the use of force - this includes the government. Only retalitory force(self-defense, throwing someone in jail) is acceptable.

So it's okay to preserve your freedom at the expense of someone else's?

Force and freedom are opposites. Once a government legalizes the initation of force to seize private property by subjective whim(for the good of the undefinable "public") or to steal private income by equally subjective whim, it loses any right to proclaim freedom - it becomes a dictatorship. Such was evolution of Soviet Russia and other communist nations.

See, what's nice about the street lighting example is that if you put a computer in charge of looking at the overall situation assuming every citizen in the concerned area is rational, it would conclude that a form of coercion is necessary.

If the government was limited back to its only moral purpose - to protect individual rights, then it wouldn't need all this looted money from the people, and could go without income tax entirely - if necessary, resorting to other means of fund-raising(other means of taxation not based on income, charities, etc.).

Maybe in a perfect world it would work, yes.

Also, those areas bereft of public funds, may even benefit from privitization.

Some most likely would, yes. I'm glad the phone public monopoly is gone here. However, I fear the day the public post offices are gone (for regular letters, not for package shipping).

Privitization encourages competition, and competition encourages development - in a free nation. Such is the sound principle of capitalism.

Assuming some of the actors don't try too hard to get out of competitive capitalism. I mean, look at the patent system. That's something I see as quite smurfed up and anti-innovative today. But at the same time, no patent will make it hard to see innovation, since you wouldn't be assured that you would reap the fruits of your labor. And look at M$.

Note that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the degree of freedom of a country was proportional to its economic, industrial, and technological growth. The United States, by far the freest, achieved the most.

I beg to differ about the 19th century. UK and France were doing pretty good, yet relied heavily on colonies. It was immoral, but it worked.

Now, ever since the introduction of the welfare state, the degree of freedom is lowering, and the US is losing its standing as the industrial powerhouse. Not to say that the US is not the freest country(which it is) or probably still the leading economic, technological, and industrial nation(which it probably is in every respect) - but that it doesn't have such a huge lead anymore. With public education, public welfare, public social security - things are stagnating. This is no coincidence.

Err, and maybe it is also the effect of capitalism, you know, that the other countries are catching up with you? Is that a bad thing?

Freedom and force cannot coexist. I cannot go up to my neighbor, take out a gun, and demand he hand over his income or his property; why can the government do so to me? When a government claims a right on the life of every person in it, it turns from a free government to a dictatorship - ruler by force. There can be no compromise where freedom - the right to your life - is concerned.

Because in 1791, the Congress proposed and argued about it, and made the decision that it would be best to "promote the general Welfare", I suppose. When we have time machines, I'll make a mental note to go ask them.

Ah well. I'm leaving for the weekend. This'll be my last post in this thread. If you still don't understand this, I can't say anything else. I laid it all down right there, with its choices: good or evil, freedom or force, the individual or the imaginary "public," development or stagnation, individual achievement or mass-slavery, a government serving the people("by the people, of the people, for the people" - Abraham Lincoln), or a people serving the government(as in Nazi Germany). Those are the only choices.

I disagree. I don't see the world in black and white. I see shades of gray. There is no pure "good" and pure "evil". No matter how hard you try to twist it to fit your view, it's still subjective. Protecting your freedom will inevitably require you to use force. In fact, any functioning legal system will rely to a greater or a lesser extent on force.

Even if it was only defensive, how is that not a case of "the end (protecting my property/freedom) justifies the means (killing/maiming/jailing the offender)"? In fact, I'm starting to think your philosophy is nothing more than that, the end (your life) justifying the means (your actions).

[Saiyan Knight]

Seems like that law is ting all over the US constitution.And I thought Ireland was ina bad way.Why the hell was the facist Bush re-elected?

[The Man]

To be fair, this had nothing to do with Bush; it was a Supreme Court decision.

[Teek]

Read Raistlin's last post.

Then pretend I said it, because boy, did he say it!

I disagree. I don't see the world in black and white. I see shades of gray. There is no pure "good" and pure "evil". No matter how hard you try to twist it to fit your view, it's still subjective. Protecting your freedom will inevitably require you to use force. In fact, any functioning legal system will rely to a greater or a lesser extent on force.

First off, I see the world in black and white, because you can't see it in shades of gray. If you do, you're just willing to cooperate with evil. To be honest, this isn't a "gray" area - either you justify the government stealing your property, or you don't. The "moral grayness" might come into play when we're talking about certain situations, but in reality, there is no twisting. Force or voluntary. Individual or masses. Freedom or slavery. Pick.

I fail to see how force needs to exist in order to protect freedom. That is a contradiction.

[Endless]

If you see in absolutes - it's either good, or it's evil, no middle ground - then you are just as a fundamentalist as any religious fanatic.

About force and freedom, if someone goes to steal your property, what are you going to do? Let him go away with your car, or are you going to fight? What if the government turned into a dictatorship, would you flee, or would you fight for your freedom? If someone was threatening to kill you, would you stand and wait for him to pull the trigger, or would you defend yourself?
The police is using force everyday to maintain your freedoms, by arresting (and in some cases killing) those who try to step on it. Same goes with the army when it defends one's country. You need force to retaliate against those who initiate force against you.

Edit: I'd like to see your definition of "good" and "evil", then you tell me why everyone should agree with it, and if everyone does or ever will.

[Teek]

If you see in absolutes - it's either good, or it's evil, no middle ground - then you are just as a fundamentalist as any religious fanatic.

Yep.

About force and freedom, if someone goes to steal your property, what are you going to do? Let him go away with your car, or are you going to fight? What if the government turned into a dictatorship, would you flee, or would you fight for your freedom? If someone was threatening to kill you, would you stand and wait for him to pull the trigger, or would you defend yourself?
The police is using force everyday to maintain your freedoms, by arresting (and in some cases killing) those who try to step on it. Same goes with the army when it defends one's country. You need force to retaliate against those who initiate force against you.

That's retaliatory force, which I support. No man may intiate force on another in order to seek a value (whether it be my money, my education, my freedom or my life).

Edit: I'd like to see your definition of "good" and "evil", then you tell me why everyone should agree with it, and if everyone does or ever will.

Oh, they won't. Look at the mass murder of today's world and you'll find people always attempt to use force on another indvidual, or mass of them.

As for "my" definition of good and evil, to put it in the simplest terms possible, good is that which furthers your life (rationally); evil is that which destroys it.

[ShunNakamura]

I have to come and post this.. though it may be more aggressive then I intended since I am sunburned and cranky now.


Seeing the world in black and white is indeed a no-no. Good and evil. They defer between people, meaning there must be some gray in there some where.

As for "my" definition of good and evil, to put it in the simplest terms possible, good is that which furthers your life (rationally); evil is that which destroys it.

This could easily making stealing good. Stealing can be rationalized.(as I see it(though not in all situations)).

Things can be inherently good or bad. But the situation applies modifiers changing it. Stealing you can say is bad. But stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, can be good depending on how everything is set up.

Modifiers can make a difference.

So I could see emninant domain used for hospitals, it it was truely needed... perhaps a road if it was truly truly needed and not frivolous.. and that the road would truly help.

In a perfect world I would say screw emninant domain and such laws.. they wouldn't be needed. Cause in a perfect would people would be rational and calm headed, etc... Unfortunately thier are people who would do stuff just out of spite etc.

Basically what I am saying is that while I aggree wiht emninant domain in some instances I feel it should be rare... very rare, and it must prove that the person involved is just trying to hinder developement out of spite or such reasons. If the person is emotionally attached(my family has lived here for a 100 years is a good example of how someone could get attached though it doesn't have to be so severe). More or less a regular court case where the civilian is the defendant. you must prove him/her guilty of being a bastard or else you can't buy it. Also it would be by the peers, with all the rights of a normal legal case.

[Teek]

This could easily making stealing good. Stealing can be rationalized.(as I see it(though not in all situations)).

Things can be inherently good or bad. But the situation applies modifiers changing it. Stealing you can say is bad. But stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, can be good depending on how everything is set up.

Modifiers can make a difference.

I don't agree. Stealing is never good.