Debates
30 Oct 06
23 Feb 08
Originally posted by slappy115they should pay more because people don't want to sell their land in the first place. and because they are using the land to build shopping centers, upscale developments, etc. not "necessities".
There is a huge difference between eminent domain and the police power of the state. You keep using the words "eminent domain" yet you are describing police power. You said something to the effect that the state should pay for eminent domain. The state MUST pay market value to claim land for eminent domain. Police power is used to put restrictions on l ...[text shortened]... r a paper mill in the middle of your neighborhood, then you will have exactly what you wanted.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou must first take the Political Compass test at PoliticalCompass.com.
Financially maybe, but liberals are not necessarily socially authoritarian.
The Gores are, but not all of them necessarily...
There are no liberals or conservatives, only Neo-Liberals. Some are more, or less, fascist ( Hitler, Bush). Some are more, or less, Libertarian ( me..Somewhat Libertarian). To the far left would be Communism.
F. GRANNY.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOk, a little libertarian strain isn't so bad as I do agree with most of their stances on social issues. On the other hand, IMO they take individual freedom to an extreme. They seemingly refuse to acknowledge that we are all tied together in many social networks, and that these networks are a consequence not merely of an intrusive leviathan government but rather primarily of our common problems. Furthermore, we each can affect one another with our behavior and so sometimes limitations must be imposed upon us to maintain the freedom of all. They champion the free market, but never care to really understand why markets may be great or why they may fail to produce socially optimal outcomes. Important factors like externalities and asymmetric information are assumed away because it undermines their "markets = freedom" philosophy.
Why not?
They remind me very much of the young, undergrad "communists." They're very passionate and often intelligent, but they've traded in practicality for naive ideals.
But hey that's just my opinion.
27 Feb 08
4 edits
Originally posted by telerionWho decides what these socially optimal outcomes are?
Ok, a little libertarian strain isn't so bad as I do agree with most of their stances on social issues. On the other hand, IMO they take individual freedom to an extreme. They seemingly refuse to acknowledge that we are all tied together in many social networks, and that these networks are a consequence not merely of an intrusive leviathan government but ut they've traded in practicality for naive ideals.
But hey that's just my opinion.
Is it socially optimal that my father's inherited property was lost due to his irresponsibility but now that we're in a position to buy new property and the market should make it easy, the government is protecting the homes of people, keeping the prices up, making it harder for us to get property back?
Is my family's continued rootlessness socially optimal? Why are the current landowners more important than my father?