Eminent Domain and Civil Rights

Now, if only the NAACP could be convinced that most other forms of coercion for work the same way, that would be progress. That and an understanding that economic redistribution will always benefit politcally favored groups, no matter how the policies are structured.

Even if you assume that highways were built completely by private builders and there was no such thing as eminent domain wouldn’t you have exactly the same problem as there would be extremely strong economic incentives to route the private toll roads through poor neighborhoods where land is the cheapest?

Give me one rational reason to think that private profit maximizing actors would do anything different.

It wouldn’t be a problem if everything was voluntary. The trouble people have with eminent domain is that it is involuntary. Sure, roads might still be more likely to go through lower income areas than rich areas, but people are not going to be pissed off since the people in the poor area consent – and people are more likely to be fairly compensated, because the property owners could say “You better make this deal worth it to me if you want to build your highway here”.

If you put a gun to the head of a black dentist, and said “You must fill my cavity, and I will pay you whatever I feel like it”, if would be slavery and the NAACP would be pissed off. Where as, if you went to a black dentist and offered to pay him to voluntarily fill your cavity, there would be no controversy. Even though the outcome is the same (black dentist fills your cavity), in the first example it is extortion, in the second example it is friendly business.

We aren’t complaining that roads are going through poor black areas… we are complaining that poor black people are forced against their will to relinquish their property, usually at below-market-value. What socialists often seem to forget is that most people don’t enjoy a gun pointed to their head… actions that normally would be uncontroversial become intolerable when we are forced to participate under the threat of violence.

I did not know eminent domain became popular again, since executive order 13406. in the early 2000s, business like target were forcing poor people to sell them their houses to build a target by saying something like, if you do not sell us your house at FAIR MARKET VALUE, we will be forced to execute eminent domain against you. And apparently the federal government was siding with large corporations because they could increase the tax value of any poor region by building their store on it. This threat was also used against small farmers to sell out to larger farming companies under the same principle, that the larger farming company can produce more on the same land.

However, I do not see any evidence supporting the NAACP’s claim that the federal government is now disobeying that executive order, although local and state governments may legally still use eminent domain.

And what is “Economically disadvantaged”???? If you can barely afford your $30,000 house, does that make you economically disadvantaged? Aren’t you always disadvantaged if you make less money than Wal-mart? Also, if you can afford a $300,000 house, but choose to live in a $30,000 house for whatever reason, you still lose your house if the government wants you to. And might I add you lose any improvements made above what the avg. home has in that bracket, not tax bracket. So I would have to conclude that “[t]he burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon,” anyone who happens to live in a cheap house on property that the local and state governments wants to use.

The only unfair thing about eminent domain is that it does not compensate for additional transportation costs to commute to work, and the hassle of moving, moving further away from your friends, and whatnot. But I guess on average, the NAACP is correct, if they have statistically significant data that says “racial ghettos are being moved by eminent domain”. And wouldn’t that actually be a good thing, to disperse the 3 ghettos left in this country by giving the inhabitants the means to move out of them??

Eminent domain fits nicely with the government being the actual landowner and others being landholder. A private landowner could theoretically turf out a tenant without any compensation.

“Give me one rational reason to think that private profit maximizing actors would do anything different.”

Do they? Of course. Because they aren’t allowed to do what government can do.

“Show me some data showing states using eminent domain to take land at below market value.”

Who said anything about market value? Maybe I missed it.

How ’bout I come take your dog and then pay you market value?

Nobody knows when the politician man is talking truth, when is talking nonsence