I know I'm a little behind the times on this one, but I've been thinking about the SCOTUS' decision regarding business teaming up w/ local gov't for emminent domains.
I've heard this described as socialism -- and I can definitely see that. That the individual no longer has 'property rights.'
What I'm wondering though, is, could it not be categorized as pure capitalism? That the goal is to gain the most money. That if you have more money and are able to acquire something that someone who has less money isn't able to, then that's fine?
Could someone help me understand why that wouldn't be a case of capitalism carried out to a logical end.
Thanks
SCOTUS, emminent domain & capitalism
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by NateT, Jul 28, 2005.
-
Capitalism in its purest form puts the ultimate power in the hands of the consumer, the individual. Socialism in its purest form puts the ultimate power in the hands of the establishment. No society can exist with both present. Capitalistic societies like the US run on the premise that, generally, power remains in the hands of the consumer except where it is impractical (such as public utilities, law enforcement and fire department, etc).
In pure capitalism, the goal is to gain the best profit (not the most money). But we don't live in a pure capitalistic society. -
How do you define the "best profit"? Are distinguishing between profit and revenue, or by saying 'best' are you incorporating morals?
How does the purest form put the power in the hands of the consumer? Are you saying by voting with their wallet? Because in this particular case, we could still boycott the company that brought the case this far, but the damage will have already been done. -
Best profit is what is at the time in the eye of the buyer and seller. There are no fixed rules for what the best profit is. The requisite changes all the time. It has nothing to do with any moral or economic laws. -
The government's task, I believe, is the most difficult of all. To break even.
The government is not in the profit making business. -
This could be a two edged sword. When Bush'es Reconstructionist friends gain control a court could decide that slum clearance for new OPC church construction is "constitutional.".
-
-
SCOTUS never made that determination. They made the determination that economic development has adequately been demonstrated to be a valid public use.
-
-
... no different that current public domain procedures.
-
The process will be the same, but if I'm a developer and I can put a couple of city councilmen in my pocket (not all that hard to do in city government), I can take any man's land I want to put up my development. Or I can take someone elses land to drill my gas well. Which enriches who besides the city?
My personal opinion is the decision will be altered or changed in the not so distant future. The outcry from the public has been enormous and cases will be coming soon to test this new empowerment of government. -
Additionally, your presumption that a person is all of a sudden corrupt somehow just because he/she is on the city council is ridiculous. You clearly lack much knowlege of civil government. Most city councils are part-time positions, paying little, and sometimes, nothing. It's a rather thankless job, and those who run for local councils typically do so out of a genuine desire for civic service. Your generalized accusation is unrighteous, unchristian, and unscriptural. City councils tend to be grass roots, nonpartisan, and in touch with the local people.
-
Additionally, your presumption that a person is all of a sudden corrupt somehow just because he/she is on the city council is ridiculous. You clearly lack much knowlege of civil government. Most city councils are part-time positions, paying little, and sometimes, nothing. It's a rather thankless job, and those who run for local councils typically do so out of a genuine desire for civic service. Your generalized accusation is unrighteous, unchristian, and unscriptural. City councils tend to be grass roots, nonpartisan, and in touch with the local people.
</font>[/QUOTE]So now the insults begin. You don't like your opinions questioned very much, do you?
Maybe it would please you to know that I have served on several city boards and was a two term city councilman. :D
You're right , it's a pretty much thankless job and if you don't believe some councilmen in some cities receive insider information on real estate transactions, you are incredibly naive. -
;) -
The Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain shows just what the Liberal Elite thinks of poor people: Let them eat cake!