Discuss. Can socialized medicine be far behind? UPDATE: I was asked, after the thread got started, to explain that we're talking about the Kelo decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the US, which expands the states' power of eminent domain. It is now legal for all of the states to expropriate property from one private owner for the express purpose of giving the land to a different private owner for redevelopment. (Note: the so-called Poletown case in Michigan was the first of these types of cases to go before a state supreme court 25 years ago, and confirmed Michigan's right to expropriate for economic development. The decision was overturned in 2004.) I should probably also mention, by way of explaining the title of the thread, that Canadians have never had constitutionally protected property rights, and that this has been a point of concern for conservatives in Canada since the signing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (by the Queen herself, even) in 1982.
You've hijacked your own thread: the socialized medicine comment will be the subject of atleast half the responses. e.g. By socialised medicine do you mean the scheme that most industrialised countries use to ensure that more than 2/3 of the population has insurance? How is it that a health club, offices and a hotel constitute "public use"? This is obviously a blatant misuse of the appropriation of property. I'm amazed that the supreme court ruled that way. It is extremely easy for any developer to show that a development has some benefit for someone. What kind of development is it that doesn't promote economic activity? Slippery slope. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050626110944101 is a good analysis
We on the conservative side of the argument in Canada (a minority, to be sure) are always happy to point out that Canada, North Korea and Cuba (great company for us, to be sure) are the only countries in the world where it is unlawful for a citizen to purchase certain forms of health care privately (including all major surgeries). This is what I meant by socialized medicine. I should have been clearer. The article you link to is excellent, pointing out both the left and right wing arguments against Kelo[/]. Canada has never provided constitutional protection for the rights of private property owners, and technically both the Federal and Provincial governments have the ability to expropriate land for whatever purpose they see fit. Though I have to confess that it's rarely or never the case that the government expros land (at least in my neck of the woods) and hand's it over to a private concern for redevelopment. (Caveat: the 407 toll highway is privately owned and exists on land that was expropriated to build the highway, but the intial development was done by the province and later sold off.)
Yep, it sure as hell can, as it doesn't serve any corporatist end. It will simply never happen. This isn't about socialistic reform, this is about giving corporations who own politicians more power over private citizens, or their competitors who don't happen to have enough big names on their pay rolls. This is capitalizm as it was meant to be!
I think mystech was pointing out that your premise that the Connecticut case has anything to do with socialism, as you had stated, was obviously false, as it is the right wings desire to expand the powers of corporate entities and the lefts desire to curb them. It is capitalism that has done this, not socialism. So your interjection doesn’t make much sense. He was commenting on the main topic, and your side comment.
Indeed, a reread puts his comment into a clearer light. I responded too quickly. Apologies to all. I don't know that you can rightly blame capitalism for this. True, capitalists (colluding with myopic legislators) are behind the case, and will be profiting from the result. Capitalists will use any opportunity that presents itself to make a buck, and sometimes the result is pretty horrifiying. But this is beyond the scope of what can legitimately be called "capitalism". This is the state using it's coercive powers of expropriation to legitimize theft, favouring one private land owner over another. (In this regard, it's more like the cherished socialist ideal of taking a higher percentage of a higher earning taxpayer's wages in the interest of "fairly" redistributing the tax burden.)
Editing your initial post to include a synopsis of the article and a bit more regarding your thoughts on the subject would likely go a long way to preventing the thread from being about socialized health care, which I agree is likely where it will go. Also it will make the thread a bit more accessible, and probably get more people posting.
I disagree. The most important point here IMO, is that in this case, the goverment forcefully takes away any leverage a private citizen may have in a negotiation... "for their own good (the good of the people, whom they implicitely assume benefit from government)". Leverage is the cornerstone of capitalism. I have something they want, and instead of negotiation, it's taken from me. That's more representative of anarchy or socialism than capitalism.
This is the federal power that made this nation possible, that allowed them to connect east and west with a network of trains, and made the highway system possible. You are required to get fair market value for your property. It's nothing new, certainly not some slippery slope on the way to socialism.
Yes, but this isn't based on any idea of some greater good, it's based on the idea of doing good by some other specific private citizen or company. So on who's behalf would the government be working in exerting this power? Clearly it would be a corporation - all this ruling allows is for a corporation to use the government as it's tool to clear out a competitor - survival of the fittest! Capitalism at it's best. An application of this eminent domain power under it's old definition, whereby the land seizure had to be for the public good would be socialist, though, I'll agree with that.
Me, too. A strip mall has little chance of revitalizing urban areas. However, a mixed shopping/ residential complex might. It is up to every city to decide what's best for them.
It is not up to the government to decide what is best for me when it comes to stealing my shit. Yes it IS stealing because "fair market value" is a line of crap. Obviously. If it weren't, you'd see a lot more "I sold my crappy 18,000 dollar house for half a mill". The market changes when a developer moves in. Further, when "public use" is somehow construed from "higher tax revenue generating capacity", there is a big fucking problem. Because now anytime the goverment wants to raise taxes, all they have to do is boot you from your family home... you know... the one you brought your children home to fro the hospital? The one you've slaved to keep the yard just right for 3939 years? I don't know if you know, ya know? I have no problem with the idea of having to move to support infrastructure items (so long as the move is also paid for, along with BETTER than what some owned bean counter deems to be fair market value). But when a developer and politician form sweetheart deals cuz they're cuzzins, and it ends up in a mini-mall where I used to live and my sorry ass in suburbia.. because the cool place I used to live no longer exists so they could fund their pet programs and pad their wallets.... that's theft, and I believe it's unconstitutional. I just think it's a stretch only a lawyer with an agenda would use to equate "public use" with "increased government income".
The mandate of the goverment is to provide order and safegaurd its populous. That's where the greater good is supposed to come in. The invididuals hired to peform government functions are supposed to hold this in mind. Given that they are human and stand to benefit greatly from a convenient interpretation of whatever policy allows them to benefit greatly, we seem to have a conflict of interest problem. All parties to which it is reponsible, within the guidelines of the constitution. Clear to whom? That is a narrow and twisted interpretation of the ruling, bent purposefully to support your incorrect claim. Looks like you're one of them, so you put it under the guise of capitalism to fortify your stealth. Did you not notice that the main difference between the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" and the human economy is that the human economy claims to have rules like "don't steal stuff", in order to avoid the chaos of anarchy. When the government condones such activity in circumstances less than dire, the people cannot trust their constitutional protections. When that happens on a large scale, what good is the constitution? The next logical step... badness for everyone. I really don't think so. This is corruption at its worst. Capitalism is not necessarily so.
That's my point exactly. I'm parodying a lot of free-market guru feel-good speach I've heard in the past. I think this is a beautiful example of how market forces aren't some mystical force which can do us no wrong.
Well, then you're really saying "anarchism on its way!" rather than "capitalism at its best"... eh? I'd agree that capitalism were analagous to the wild if it weren't for the difference mentioned. Capitalism IMO, is exactly "survival of the fittest" but "within the rules". IMO, when those rules are bent too far beyond their spirit by too many, it's no longer capitalism.
I believe that at it's heart Capitalism desperately wants to be anarchy. Inside the mind of every cut-throat gung-ho free-trader is a caveman who wants to beat up every other male in sight and drag his women back to his hovel by her hair.
It is his natural right to do so if he can beat them up! If you can't drag off the woman, then there will be no incentive to beat up the other males. How will they get beat up in that case? Will you hippies and your good vibes do it? Mystech, why do you hate freedom?
The packaging is hideous. Send it back to the boys in marketing for a revamp, and maybe I'll think about borrowing some money from someone else to buy it just like everyone else.
