Greenhut on Prop 90
I've been reading some of the arguments against Prop 90 that have been floating around lately. Prop 90 is the upcoming ballot initiative that will supposedly reform eminent domain practices in California. Proponents say it will help ensure that governments don't seize land from a private entity only to give it to another private entity.
I'll be voting YES on Prop 90, as will the Orange County Register's Steve Greenhut. Greehut makes his case for a YES vote on Prop 90 in this hard hitting commentary.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:06 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
gov't used to be the thing that kept thieves from stealing peoples property, now the state is complicite in such activities. Time draws near for a civil war Fred.
High finance pirates have always used the gov't to aid in their stealing. But commoners can also use the gov't to their advantage. It's one reason democracy was an improvement over feudalism. War is never civil.
Fred, where is the case history to establish that there is a problem here that needs fixing?
Just like Schwarzenegger's erroneous and completely unsupportable "business is leaving California" statement, this initiative preys on an anecdotal and completely false problem statement. Try to back up the statements about business leaving the state, or property being taken by eminent domain, and you will get no facts, just a "Well, I know it's true" response.
Fact is, this initiative has little or nothing to do with property seizure, and everything to do with drastically curtailing the ability of the State or its municipalities to protect the long term public interests through reasonable and neccessary regulation. The 'eminent domain' part is just the sales job, to get people on board with it. Apparently, the strategy is working.
Ultimately, the State must have the ability to regulate any and all industries which have the potential to cause harm to the health, safety, and well-being of the public, whether immediate or long term. By requiring the State to pay for any resultant reduction in potential property value, this necessary function of government is reduced to meaninglessness.
Ultimately, this intiative would never stand even the most basic of legal challenges as it stands in direct opposition to nearly every legal precedent of the last, oh, 1,500 years. Protecting the public interest must trump private monetary interests. Fred, if you really thought about the ramifications of the alternative, you would agree.
There's a lot more to this proposition than emminent domain reform apparently. I've got a slew of reading to do before I make up my mind, but apparently many people who voted for a similar measure up in Oregon are sorry that they did now that it's causing some serious problems.
I'll move the issue from my backburner.
10:51 wrote, "Ultimately, the State must have the ability to regulate any and all industries which have the potential to cause harm to the health, safety, and well-being of the public, whether immediate or long term."
Gee, sounds like we have our very own authoritarian on board the blog now.
In other words, the State must have the ability to regulate everything? I don't know about that.
10:51 also wrote, "By requiring the State to pay for any resultant reduction in potential property value, this necessary function of government is reduced to meaninglessness.".
Oh, I don't know about meaningless. Requiring payment may be problematic, but I don't see it being reduced to being meaningless.
Fred, believing that the rights of the many should not be subjugated to the rights of the few does not make me an authoritarian, nor does it make me a communist, a facist, an anarchist, or a nazi. Let's drop the labels, okay?
This is the most essential function of government, be it a democracy, a republic, or a monarchy. Property rights do not exist in a vacuum, in that what one property owner does with their land has the very real potential to harm the rights of other property owners. Regulation is the instrument by which government protects the property rights of the many from harm by the few.
Now, can regulation get carried away? Of course it can, as can de-regulation. The question is, has it? Prop 90 assumes that the taking of property by government through eminent domain is out of control, though there is no evidence or proof to support that assertion. In response to this unsupported assertion, Prop 90 asks you to give up your right to protect your private property against harm, so as to protect it against seizure by the government. Really, now, which is more likely to happen?
Here's an article from last year about eminent domain in California from the Chronicle.
Thanks for the heads up on that article, Heraldo. I've seen a number like that, but was hard pressed to find them, being somewhat lazy.
I remembered the articles from when they came out in the Chronicle. The guy who had the auto shop in downtown Oakland really sticks with me. He really got screwed.
anon 1:22 has variously objected to "labels". His/her statements however fit the following template close enough for him/her to be categorized as a "Hegelian" i.e. "collectivist".
"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State."
19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Hegel is the most influential philosopher of collectivism;inspiring Karl Marx, the "National Socialists" (Nationalsozialistisch)the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.
7:37 (I don't know how to type the letters for your name), your reference to Hegel is unfounded. There is nothing in what I said that suggests that a human being's self worth is derived solely from the collective.
Rather, what I said (essentially) is that the collective exists to protect the individual from other individuals. This cuts both ways: It protects the individual from the tyranny of the masses, and it protects the masses from the tyranny of the individual. The two must exist in balance.
Prop 90 sees property rights as unique to the individual (private interest,) and ignores the rights of the masses (public interest.) In reality, the public interest is far more likely to be harmed by private interests than the other way around. Prop 90 is an over-the-top response to a problem that does not exist.
Thanks, though, for trying to create the appearance of a philosophical debate. I'm glad your friends at dissectleft.blogspot.com could help you with your plagiarism.
Toad 8:55. Thank you for including the url for Dr. Ray's Blog. Like you I cannot post links in these comments threads. The collectivist shoe however, obviously fits you. Authoritarians such as yourself generally revert to ad hominem attacks, so we are not surprised. At least I post under an identifiable name even though you are too obtuse to learn how to type mine. Keep trying :o)
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Look up "ad hominem." I have made no such 'attack' on you. In fact, I have made no attack of any kind, other than to point out that you lifted your previous post almost word for word from another uncredited source. A simple statement of fact is not an attack.
Meanwhile, I have so far been called an authoritarian, a Hegelian, a collectivist and, by extension, a communist, a socialist, and a nazi. It has even been implied that I must have gone to a university which, I guess, must somehow be a bad thing. It is funny that you have engaged in nothing but labeling and name calling, and yet you accuse me (incorrectly) of resorting to "ad hominem" attacks.
Please, if you wish to have a discussion of ideas, then let's stick to substance, and not simple labels and name calling.
BTW, your tag hardly counts as an identifiable name. Worse than anonymity, you have chosen to hide behind a false identity.
Oh, I forgot. You also called me a toad.
The collectivist shoe?
eric! If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs the smart money is NOT betting it's a chinchilla.
Ducks don't wear shoes. Not Howard. Not Donald. Not Daffy.
Ducks don't wear shoes. Not Howard. Not Donald. Not Daffy.
tsk tsk. Stuttering again?
Aeonidas, hiding behind an icon and a collection of symbols cannot obscure the fact that you have not presented anything approximating either an intelligent argument, a philosophical or idealogical position, or a statement of fact or law. Instead, you have tried to dismiss my arguments based solely on the assertion that I fit some pre-conceived (though false) label and that, therefore, my arguments must be wrong.
Again, please look up "ad hominem." You really ought to get well acquainted with the term if you are going to use this kind of an argument.
Oh, yeah, you also called me obtuse.
and you are obtuse 7:48. the blogosphere is a masquerade. you wear a mask, in this case either a name or anonymity. people try to guess at your identity, but are far less successful than they would be in person.
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ is well known to us all.
pick a name and go by it, no one will be the wiser.
copy-paste, ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ, works for me, btw
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ is well known to us all.
No, not at all. I have no idea who this person is. I do, however, have a sense of who this person is trying (desperately) to portray him-or-herself to be.
Yes, anonymity rules in the blogosphere. Here a middle-school student can challenge a university professor on a level playing field, niether one limited nor augmented by whatever letters follow their name. Titles, labels, and the baggage of our real lives are left behind, allowing us all to compete as equals in the arena of ideas, limited only by one's intellect.
I would love to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. Unfortunatley, that does not appear to be in the offing here. Just childish name-calling. I feel like King Aurthur standing in front of the quadruple-amputated Black Knight, who is calling me an "obtuse, collectiveist toad," and still insisting that he'll bite my head off.
Post a Comment
<< Home