Supreme Court OKs seizure of personal property for private economic development

[Teek]

Maybe someday we'll manage that and that would do some good. I find it unlikely (that we'll manage to properly limit the gov't powers), though; maybe I'm pessimistic, maybe realistic, depends how you look at it. Maybe it'll take a revolution.

It might. I think that if we wait a few generations, then definately. At this point, however, I think it's possible if we just start with one issue at a time. Bringing down a government to the protection of individual rights is difficult, but I think that when that is the professed goal of a government, there is little that "lobbying" can do; one group, for example, couldn't look for special priveledges when the government stops having the ability to grant them.

Showing two things: first, that you aren't a complete objectivist in my opinion, because you can base some of your decisions based on someone else's happiness (your sister (and I suppose your close family aswell?)). After that, we might disagree on how much we'd allow ourselves to do for our family, but it's minor. Second, you might limit this "making someone happy" to your close family, but if it works for family, it can work for friends, acquaintances... up to strangers.

It can work for anyone I value. Strangers? Only if I believe that the stranger is a good person. I'm not against helping out others. I'm against helping them out when it won't benefit anyone at all (for example, if they want a five-dollar bill so they can get a beer and go beg some more; my money won't help them at all). I'm definately against a person who talks about how they need it. (Africa debate, for example.)

I'd fully agree if I was convinced everyone would adhere to that idea, however, I'm not. I think that sadly, it's also in human nature to cheat others.

I think that there are people like that, but I don't think it's basic human nature, myself. I think that there are criminals, sure, and if we were to outlaw that (living for others, or living at the expense of others), well, that'd solve the main problems. It might be simple, but it never had to be complex, the way I see it.

I think they can use both, brain more than heart, yes, but I think it's good when can use our heart too sometimes.

Sure, you can think of your heart, but I don't really see how using my heart primarily ever will fix anything. If I was ruled by emotions, I'd be screwed. Feelings, as I saw them, are just feelings - automatic reactions to life situations. As a result, they can be changed. If my mind and heart disagree, I side with my mind. I tend to be happy after I realize that was a good choice.

And I reject the idea that you can't think of others ever because you have to think of yourself at all times. If we take both these statements, what we get is that we can think of ourselves, and we can think of others, which is what I think we do, and should be doing.

Agreed, but we can't think of others against ourselves. In this case, with eminent domain, we can't say "well, they aren't coming after me" because if it happens to one person, it can happen to any of us. So, think of others, but I think it's best to think of individuals. Don't consider groups.

If you mean reverence as in respect, yes. If you mean as in worship, no. Would you mind explaining the second part of the sentence, I'm not sure I undertsand what you mean by "based on their own importance".

I did mean respect. As for the second part, I meant recognize others have the right to respect themselves and that, for the people who truly respect themselves, that they deserve our good will before we damn them. Just as in a legal, just court, people have to be seen innocent until proven guilty (which means I don't see human nature as negative, even though I met a few who had a bad nature).

I don't have anything against you talking about it, heck, it's interesting to have something to debate about, even if I disagree. However, I'm quite pessimistic about getting your main goal achieved short of a revolution.

I dislike pessimism, but honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if that goal will ever be solved, as well. People tend to be against the idea that humans can be free and happy too readily.

Yet it happens. What I think is that some people choose not to sell not because they'd lose wealth or not, but because they let their emotions in their decision. We were talking about the sentimental value with The Man earlier, that's this. If everyone was thinking only about market value, we'd never need eminent domain, however, sometimes people give things a very different subjective value.

Yeah, but this is where I get pretty absolutist. I think they'd be fools to sell it; I think that ruling everything by emotions is a bit stupid; I think that it's their house so they can burn it down if they want to. The government can't force that. They simply cannot steal that house, no matter how foolish the person is.

And as I said in one of my previous post, I think that this decision by the SC was stupid, because it doesn't benefit the public, it benefits the private entity that's getting the land (and I would expect benefit the official who took the decision).

Yeah, and if we ever get to the point where I think that the "public benefit" is defined correctly (the protection of individual rights), then I'll safely agree with you. It doesn't benefit anyone.

[Endless]

It might. I think that if we wait a few generations, then definately. At this point, however, I think it's possible if we just start with one issue at a time. Bringing down a government to the protection of individual rights is difficult, but I think that when that is the professed goal of a government, there is little that "lobbying" can do; one group, for example, couldn't look for special priveledges when the government stops having the ability to grant them.

I think we agree that a good start is to stop the gov't from getting any more powers, then see what can be reduced, and let the rest up to the next generations, then.

It can work for anyone I value. Strangers? Only if I believe that the stranger is a good person. I'm not against helping out others. I'm against helping them out when it won't benefit anyone at all (for example, if they want a five-dollar bill so they can get a beer and go beg some more; my money won't help them at all). I'm definately against a person who talks about how they need it. (Africa debate, for example.)

I saw this apprently interesting article over Phoenix' shoulder yesterday, from some African (I think) explaining why the current help to Africa makes its situation worse. I'll try finding the link so I can read it and give it to you. I agree about the not giving money to drunks whom I know will buy booze. That's why I don't give that much, especially to people sitting on their asses when they can do more. Incapacitated people are a different matter.

I think that there are people like that, but I don't think it's basic human nature, myself. I think that there are criminals, sure, and if we were to outlaw that (living for others, or living at the expense of others), well, that'd solve the main problems. It might be simple, but it never had to be complex, the way I see it.

I'm not sure if I'd agree about outlawing these. I mean, someone can choose to live for others, he's free to choose so, and it doesn't hurt anyone else's freedom (unless he starts forcing a third person to "help" him help others, of course). The other case is also arguable, since to live at the expense of someone, you need to have someone living for you. Some people are guillible and fall for it and we can protect those, some choose to do so, and in different amounts. For some people, that's how they feel their life is best lived, and I can't really say that I know what's best for them better than they do.

Sure, you can think of your heart, but I don't really see how using my heart primarily ever will fix anything. If I was ruled by emotions, I'd be screwed. Feelings, as I saw them, are just feelings - automatic reactions to life situations. As a result, they can be changed. If my mind and heart disagree, I side with my mind. I tend to be happy after I realize that was a good choice.

I'm not saying my heart is my primary way to make decisions. Usually, I reason things out, and sometimes, I choose not to think too much. So far, I don't feel like it's been too bad. Let's take buying games for example. Out of all the games I ever bought on a whim, there's only one I regret buying: Dragon Valor. I did pretty silly things when I was youger for dumb reasons, but I don't regret them. Example: I took German as my first foreign language when I was 12. The reason? I wanted to be in the same class as the girl I liked. But that choice based on emotion lead me to meet some people during all the years after that I consider my best friends today.

Agreed, but we can't think of others against ourselves. In this case, with eminent domain, we can't say "well, they aren't coming after me" because if it happens to one person, it can happen to any of us. So, think of others, but I think it's best to think of individuals. Don't consider groups.

I've been pondering this, in fact, what would I do if it was me? When I try to think, on one hand I think I would sell if I felt the price was good (market price + cost of moving + an extra), but I think that when faced with that situation, I might act differently even if I was proposed a good price. Same thing goes with some other situations, such as how would I react to someone killing my wife, or my brother/sister/best friend? Today, sitting at my desk I think I would let the police handle it and then the courts. But I'm aware that I might just lose it and just put my beliefs on the side until I find and take care of the bastard myself. I honestly do not know what would be my reaction if it happened, though, and I doubt anyone can, really.

I did mean respect. As for the second part, I meant recognize others have the right to respect themselves and that, for the people who truly respect themselves, that they deserve our good will before we damn them. Just as in a legal, just court, people have to be seen innocent until proven guilty (which means I don't see human nature as negative, even though I met a few who had a bad nature).

Agreed.

I dislike pessimism, but honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if that goal will ever be solved, as well. People tend to be against the idea that humans can be free and happy too readily.

That's part of the source of my pessimism, in fact.

Yeah, but this is where I get pretty absolutist. I think they'd be fools to sell it; I think that ruling everything by emotions is a bit stupid; I think that it's their house so they can burn it down if they want to. The government can't force that. They simply cannot steal that house, no matter how foolish the person is.

Don't you mean "fools not to sell it"? I think that's what you were saying a few posts before. I'm still saying I'm not for ruling everything on emotions. and as for burning your house, well, depends. If you're far from everyone, go for it. If it's gonna hurt other people's situation (ie ruin the value of their houses nearby), I'm starting to disagree, and if you're going to put others in danger, then no (you can't burn your appartment for example, since doing it means burning all the others in the building).

Yeah, and if we ever get to the point where I think that the "public benefit" is defined correctly (the protection of individual rights), then I'll safely agree with you. It doesn't benefit anyone.

Well, a hospital can help quite a bit in pursuing your own happiness by allowing you to live. You might not need it (good for you), but then, you might really need it (hopefully not). It's a bit like buying an insurance, for a long time you don't need it, but when you do, aren't you glad you had it? Public benefit is the same, individually, one may never get much from it, but he has the possibility if needed. Now call me immoral if you want, but I value saving hundreds/thousands of lives over one person's house (assuming there's absolutely no alternative to using that land and that the potential seller(s) is/are just irreasonable). In a way, by being an ass for the sake of being an ass, that person is hurting a lot of other people's right to live in the future.