Private property

[Quantum Windbag]

Property rights, as with all rights, exist only by law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. That's the way it is; that's the way of the world. Get used to it.

Does that mean that if we change the law someone could kill you because the only right you have to live comes form the law? Do you actually believe that your right to breathe comes from the law, or is it something more fundamental?

 

[flacaltenn]

Quantum Windbag:

As to the idea that socialism might work, I see no reason it would not, on a small scale. My problem with socialism doesn't lie with the communal ownership of property, it lies with the central planning. Central planning is cumbersome and slow to respond to changes if the system gets larger. Despite your request not top point at history to make a point, if you examine history this is the one thing that stands out. Socialism works on a small scale, but fails when the system grows to large.

Generally all you said ditto.. But it is ALSO the "communal ownership of property" itself. Because the rules for sharing of that property are dependent on the FORM of the governance. Much less aggregious are the rules for sharing of CORPORATE property that we all understand. But in the case of GOVT owned property -- it's a crap shoot. To wit -- the Iraq oil fields under Saddam Hussein. (I know that's forbidden by the rules set out for this thread -- but it's an example. ) Had we marched into Iraq with a few truckloads of stock certificates for the oil fields to be distributed among the populace, we probably could have left without spending a penny on reconstruction or a life.

In fact, MOST of the Arab spring today is because the valuable land (oil producing) in those countries are in hands that do not set fair rules for "sharing". Technically, they are communally held. Do you want to risk it?

 

[rdean]

According to the conservative right wing Supreme Court, making money supersedes all property rights. If a town can figure out a way to make money off your property, then they deserve to take it from you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to the conservative right wing Supreme Court, making money supersedes all property rights. If a town can figure out a way to make money off your property, then they deserve to take it from you.

Maybe you should take another look at your history. Kelo v City of New London was a 5-4 decision where the conservatives generally disagreed with the liberal majority which held that local governments could take private property and turn it over to private developers.

The actual opinion was written by Stevens, with a concurrence by Kennedy. The dissenting opinion was written by O'Conner, with a scathing dissent by Thomas.

Though one component of the protection provided by the Takings Clause is that the government can take private property only if it provides “just compensation” for the taking, the Takings Clause also prohibits the government from taking property except “for public use.” Were it otherwise, the Takings Clause would either be meaningless or empty. If the Public Use Clause served no function other than to state that the government may take property through its eminent domain power–for public or private uses–then it would be surplusage. See ante, at 3—4 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803) (“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 151 (1926). Alternatively, the Clause could distinguish those takings that require compensation from those that do not. That interpretation, however, “would permit private property to be taken or appropriated for private use without any compensation whatever.” Cole v. La Grange, 113 U.S. 1, 8 (1885) (interpreting same language in the Missouri Public Use Clause). In other words, the Clause would require the government to compensate for takings done “for public use,” leaving it free to take property for purely private uses without the payment of compensation. This would contradict a bedrock principle well established by the time of the founding: that all takings required the payment of compensation. 1 Blackstone 135; 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 275 (1827) (hereinafter Kent); J. Madison, for the National Property Gazette, (Mar. 27, 1792), in 14 Papers of James Madison 266, 267 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983) (arguing that no property “shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner”).1 The Public Use Clause, like the Just Compensation Clause, is therefore an express limit on the government’s power of eminent domain. The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever. At the time of the founding, dictionaries primarily defined the noun “use” as “[t]he act of employing any thing to any purpose.” 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 2194 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson). The term “use,” moreover, “is from the Latin utor, which means ‘to use, make use of, avail one’s self of, employ, apply, enjoy, etc.” J. Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain §165, p. 224, n. 4 (1888) (hereinafter Lewis). When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property, it strains language to say that the public is “employing” the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use. The term “public use,” then, means that either the government or its citizens as a whole must actually “employ” the taken property. See id., at 223 (reviewing founding-era dictionaries).

KELO V. NEW LONDON

Look at this, not only is rdean wrong, he actually agrees completely with Thomas that making money does not trump property rights.

It is official folks, rdean is actually a Republican. I knew he could not be as stupid as he sounds. He just post that way to make liberals look stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thanx for the education.. But what I meant by

A corrolary to this is that management is centralized for common property thereby removing it from innovative uses and redirections which can make it more productive in distributed hands.. (for a backwards 1 and 1/2 with a twist -- see the KELO case under eminent domain)

was -- that KELO ignored the innovative uses that get found thru distributed ownership and that the govt simply ASSERTS the best use.. Thus the BACKWARDS 1 and 1/2. Oh well. Tough audience..

Don't worry. I'm following along. It's just hell to be concise and not ramble..

 

[Nemo]

Property rights, as with all rights, exist only by law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. That's the way it is; that's the way of the world. Get used to it.

Does that mean that if we change the law someone could kill you because the only right you have to live comes form the law? Do you actually believe that your right to breathe comes from the law, or is it something more fundamental?

Yes. Even the very air we breathe is subject to legal regulation. Get used to it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Property rights, as with all rights, exist only by law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. That's the way it is; that's the way of the world. Get used to it.

Does that mean that if we change the law someone could kill you because the only right you have to live comes form the law? Do you actually believe that your right to breathe comes from the law, or is it something more fundamental?

Yes. Even the very air we breathe is subject to legal regulation. Get used to it.

You get used to it, I am free.

I reference my signature.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maybe you should take another look at your history. Kelo v City of New London was a 5-4 decision where the conservatives generally disagreed with the liberal majority which held that local governments could take private property and turn it over to private developers.

Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

The case had nothing to do with the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition:

[T]his is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.

The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement. The petitioners could just as well have been a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation subject to the same eminent domain taking.

Consequently:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

So again, the Court acknowledges precedent and accedes to the local jurisdiction’s definition of a public purpose.

With regard to opposition from the right, the irony being the ruling is a victory for local jurisdictions (as opposed to mandates from the Federal level), illustrates the Court’s respect for the legislative process (as opposed to ‘legislating from the bench’), and acknowledges the free market is a better model for economic development (as opposed to government policy).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZO

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

The guy who knows less about the law than the average kindergartener is trying to teach someone about the law again?

The case had nothing to do with the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition:

No she was not.

From O'Conner's dissent.

Justice O’Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:
“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

This case is about nothing else but the government taking private property from the little guy and giving it to the big guy. This was the first time in the history that the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the power to assign its power of eminent domain to a private group. I am not sure how anyone, even a complete idiot, could argue that Kelo was trying to get an exception to any established definition. Can you point to any previous case where the court allowed the government to give away its powers, or when "economic development" had ever been used to justify eminent domain?

Public use is not a private company building a shopping mall. The proof of this is rather simply illustrated by the fact that the New Trumbull project has seen no new construction at all, and Pfizer has actually left New London. Guess who gets to pay the $80 million dollar bill.

 

[editec]

I'd like to discuss the core issue underlying the capitalism/socialism debate: the issue of property 'ownership'.

Up front, in the interest of full disclosure, I've always leaned strongly libertarian, strongly free-market. And while I have issues with a few of the fundamental rules framing corporate capitalism (limited liability, etc..), I see private control over resources and the 'means of production' as preferable to control by a compulsive state government.

That said, unlike many of my libertarian/free-market friends, I don't see the concept of some alternative to private property 'unthinkable'. We already handle many other aspects of our environment communally and it doesn't seem crazy to us. In fact, the alternative might seem worse; do we really want to treat the air we breath as an ownable property? We've agreed to hold significant swaths of real estate and resources (roads, parks, etc) as 'public' property and this seems to work ok. So, why not the 'means of production'?

I'd like to avoid the usual partisan vitriol here, and actual discuss the issue in good faith. Even if you are adamantly opposed to socialism, I'll ask that you work with the assumption that it might work.

The other thing I'd like to avoid, from both 'sides' of the argument, is the reliance on historical data. The problem with using historical examples is always the lack of complete information and the lack of any possible counterfactuals to understand the situation. Did socialism fail in the USSR because it was implemented by a totalitarian government, or did it become totalitarian as a logical progression of socialism? Are modern socialists states succeeding because of socialism, or in spite of it? We can't really know the answers to these kind of questions. In any case, the contexts of these other nations are all different than ours. I'd like to discuss how we might work without private property here, in the U.S., with our situation, and our values as a people.

I believe that it does make sense to have both PRIVATE PROPERTY AND COMMONLY OWNED PROPERTY.

To some extent we have always done that.

The water is commonly owned in most cases, as is the air.

The problem is that the commonly owned stuff is controlled by governments which are easily bought off by PRIVATE CAPITIAL.

I think a MIXED economic system is not just a better idea, I think it is really the ONLY idea that can possible work.

Pure Socialism leads to massive tragedies of the commons as does pure capitalism.

 

[Nemo]

Free to do what, Mr. Windbag? All rights in property, whether in fee, tenancy, license or incorporeal hereditament, exist only by law. Nor are you free to do anything you wish with your property. The old shibboleth that "a man's home is his castle" was never true, for all property rights have always been subject to the power of the federal, state and municipal authority, witness the myriad laws, statutes, zoning ordinances, easements, rights or way, and use restrictions that limit the rights of property ownership. Even a prescriptive right is only valid to the extent recognized by law. If you need further proof, just try putting on an addition to your house without a building permit and see what happens to you, not to mention your property. (Recently, the owner of an office highrise in San Diego had to take off the top two floors of his building because they intruded on federal airspace.) There are some jurisdictions (e.g., Glendale, Arizona) that even regulate the amount of water your toilet can flush. So if you think you’re king of your castle, you’d better start using a chamber pot for a throne!

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Property rights will be a thing of the past if some people get their way.

In IA a town is attempting to require that all businesses and apartments with more than 3 units produce copies of all keys to the property for use by fire and police departments.

Opposition organizes to beat key box ordinance

Pretty soon your home or business won't be yours and forget about being "secure in your person, houses, papers and effects"

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Thomas Jefferson.

Another quote from Jefferson reminds us in whose hands our futures rest.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.

We lost security in our person, houses, papers or effects when we failed to recognize the true enemy of the people. It is any leader who claims the only means of keeping the people safe and secure is for them to surrender their freedoms and liberties. Ever notice the difficulty in reclaiming those freedoms once the threat is no longer imminent? Damned near impossible actually.

 

[Nemo]

Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty for security. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Indeed, one need only look to the the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to see that he was right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Free to do what, Mr. Windbag? All rights in property, whether in fee, tenancy, license or incorporeal hereditament, exist only by law. Nor are you free to do anything you wish with your property. The old shibboleth that "a man's home is his castle" was never true, for all property rights have always been subject to the power of the federal, state and municipal authority, witness the myriad laws, statutes, zoning ordinances, easements, rights or way, and use restrictions that limit the rights of property ownership. Even a prescriptive right is only valid to the extent recognized by law. If you need further proof, just try putting on an addition to your house without a building permit and see what happens to you, not to mention your property. (Recently, the owner of an office highrise in San Diego had to take off the top two floors of his building because they intruded on federal airspace.) There are some jurisdictions (e.g., Glendale, Arizona) that even regulate the amount of water your toilet can flush. So if you think you’re king of your castle, you’d better start using a chamber pot for a throne!

Do you have a point, or are you just typing because you are fascinated by the fact that letters magically appear on your monitor when you do it? I suggest you go back and reread my post where I argued that I can see a strong argument, under some circumstances, to charge people for the air they breathe. Your biggest problem here is you have no idea what freedom actually is in the context I use it, so you try to provide examples of how others are not free to prove that I am not free either. It doesn't work that way unless you are trying to make a philosophical point that no one is free as long as everyone is not free. Since I doubt you are trying to be that deep I am completely at a loss.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Quantum Windbag:

As to the idea that socialism might work, I see no reason it would not, on a small scale. My problem with socialism doesn't lie with the communal ownership of property, it lies with the central planning. Central planning is cumbersome and slow to respond to changes if the system gets larger. Despite your request not top point at history to make a point, if you examine history this is the one thing that stands out. Socialism works on a small scale, but fails when the system grows to large.

Generally all you said ditto.. But it is ALSO the "communal ownership of property" itself. Because the rules for sharing of that property are dependent on the FORM of the governance. Much less aggregious are the rules for sharing of CORPORATE property that we all understand. But in the case of GOVT owned property -- it's a crap shoot. To wit -- the Iraq oil fields under Saddam Hussein. (I know that's forbidden by the rules set out for this thread -- but it's an example. ) Had we marched into Iraq with a few truckloads of stock certificates for the oil fields to be distributed among the populace, we probably could have left without spending a penny on reconstruction or a life.

In fact, MOST of the Arab spring today is because the valuable land (oil producing) in those countries are in hands that do not set fair rules for "sharing". Technically, they are communally held. Do you want to risk it?

Im don't see how redistributing wealth solves the problem of wealth inequality under a private property based economy. You could do the same thing here in America, expropriate the means of production and equally distribute shares among the population to give everyone part ownership. In ten years you would be back to the same lopsided wealth distribution that we see today because the smartest would end up acqiring everybody else's shares.

 

[dblack]

...My problem with socialism doesn't lie with the communal ownership of property, it lies with the central planning. Central planning is cumbersome and slow to respond to changes if the system gets larger.

This is a really good point, and something socialism advocates rarely address. The primary function of private property in a capitalist economy is allocation of resources. If we're not going to trust 'the people' to do this, each expressing their values through their choices, then we must replace this function with something. Someone has to make the call. I'm just curious who it will be and how such decisions get made if people aren't free to do it themselves?

I would also like to point out that the means of production is often owned by the community in our current system. We have a word for that in the United States, corporation. Like socialism, I see problems when corporations get too big. They become unwieldy and slow to respond to market forces. We saw that recently when the government argued that some corporations got too big to fail. Imagine if, instead of just bailing them out, they would have had to bail themselves out. How would that have worked out in the long run?

Well said. I don't think people realize just how damaging things like the bailouts (and other, more subtle state intervention on behalf of corporations) really is. It's the single biggest dysfunction of modern capitalism, imo, and makes the droning calls for even more state intervention very hard to take.

FWIW, I don't consider state intervention in a free market socialist in nature. Socialism would be the state simply seizing property (factories and the like) and running the companies as state holdings. What we have now is the worst of both worlds, with the compulsive power of the state manipulating the economy for the benefit of corporations that are, increasingly, failing to fulfill their purpose.

 

[flacaltenn]

Quantum Windbag:

As to the idea that socialism might work, I see no reason it would not, on a small scale. My problem with socialism doesn't lie with the communal ownership of property, it lies with the central planning. Central planning is cumbersome and slow to respond to changes if the system gets larger. Despite your request not top point at history to make a point, if you examine history this is the one thing that stands out. Socialism works on a small scale, but fails when the system grows to large.

Generally all you said ditto.. But it is ALSO the "communal ownership of property" itself. Because the rules for sharing of that property are dependent on the FORM of the governance. Much less aggregious are the rules for sharing of CORPORATE property that we all understand. But in the case of GOVT owned property -- it's a crap shoot. To wit -- the Iraq oil fields under Saddam Hussein. (I know that's forbidden by the rules set out for this thread -- but it's an example. ) Had we marched into Iraq with a few truckloads of stock certificates for the oil fields to be distributed among the populace, we probably could have left without spending a penny on reconstruction or a life.

In fact, MOST of the Arab spring today is because the valuable land (oil producing) in those countries are in hands that do not set fair rules for "sharing". Technically, they are communally held. Do you want to risk it?

Im don't see how redistributing wealth solves the problem of wealth inequality under a private property based economy. You could do the same thing here in America, expropriate the means of production and equally distribute shares among the population to give everyone part ownership. In ten years you would be back to the same lopsided wealth distribution that we see today because the smartest would end up acqiring everybody else's shares.

In the example of the Iraqi Oil fields, if America HAD divvyed up the shares and distributed them, we'd be long gone when they discovered the "redistribution" secret. But NOBODY is going to busy bombing and insurrecting (or tolerating such acts) when they are "newly rich" are they?

In all seriousness, the chance to get income from a common asset is awfully tempting to keep to yourself (rather than sell it) in a country where that asset is the most important and most reliable. And having the certificates in the hands of the people would assure interest in the creation of a responsive and stable govt. Wouldn't work if there were other ventures for capital to flow to that might rival the income and stability of oil in Iraq.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Quantum Windbag:



Generally all you said ditto.. But it is ALSO the "communal ownership of property" itself. Because the rules for sharing of that property are dependent on the FORM of the governance. Much less aggregious are the rules for sharing of CORPORATE property that we all understand. But in the case of GOVT owned property -- it's a crap shoot. To wit -- the Iraq oil fields under Saddam Hussein. (I know that's forbidden by the rules set out for this thread -- but it's an example. ) Had we marched into Iraq with a few truckloads of stock certificates for the oil fields to be distributed among the populace, we probably could have left without spending a penny on reconstruction or a life.

In fact, MOST of the Arab spring today is because the valuable land (oil producing) in those countries are in hands that do not set fair rules for "sharing". Technically, they are communally held. Do you want to risk it?

Im don't see how redistributing wealth solves the problem of wealth inequality under a private property based economy. You could do the same thing here in America, expropriate the means of production and equally distribute shares among the population to give everyone part ownership. In ten years you would be back to the same lopsided wealth distribution that we see today because the smartest would end up acqiring everybody else's shares.

In the example of the Iraqi Oil fields, if America HAD divvyed up the shares and distributed them, we'd be long gone when they discovered the "redistribution" secret. But NOBODY is going to busy bombing and insurrecting (or tolerating such acts) when they are "newly rich" are they?

In all seriousness, the chance to get income from a common asset is awfully tempting to keep to yourself (rather than sell it) in a country where that asset is the most important and most reliable. And having the certificates in the hands of the people would assure interest in the creation of a responsive and stable govt. Wouldn't work if there were other ventures for capital to flow to that might rival the income and stability of oil in Iraq.

90% of all shares would be sold within the first year. Most people don't have a long term outlook, they would cash out at the first sign of an attractive offer for their shares. You overestimate the ability of people to govern themselves. They need other people to make decisions for them, and, unfortunately most of the time they get duped. Rest assured, equality would not have lasted long, and if we had left the Iraqis in charge of themselves bad things would have happened.