New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 16, 2005

The New York Times boasted one of the few editorial boards not horrified by the ruling in Kelo that government could seize homes and hand them over to private developers. Matt Welch wonders if it has anything to do with their spiffy new headquarters.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← A Call From the Governor | Main | Two Wrongs Make a Moronic Right… →

See all 66 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|9.16.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Since one skyscraper built by the NYT is not going to have any discernable effect on the "blight" around the Port Authority bus station, can I post a couple hookers on the sidewalk in front of the new building, and get the courts to give the land to someone else?

|9.16.05 @ 2:18PM|#

"[But they] have an extreme and pernicious view of property rights that, if implemented in full, would have disastrous consequences for the country."

spoken like a tenant

|9.16.05 @ 2:26PM|#

spoken like a tenant

Huh? Tenants can be supportive of property rights, too.

|9.16.05 @ 2:31PM|#

spoken like a tenant

Huh? Tenants can be supportive of property rights, too.

|9.16.05 @ 2:43PM|#

"Huh? Tenants can be supportive of property rights, too"

you're right, they can. but someone who's bought and paid for their home isn't likely to be so dismissive of property rights as young Mr. Yglesias. His ox isn't being gored. It's very unlikely he'd feel that way if his property was being appropriated and at below market value which really is the whole point of eminant domain in a case like Kelo; developers not willing to pay what it would take

|9.16.05 @ 3:26PM|#

"What it would take" is not "market value."

Some people wouldn't leave a shack with no heat for $1 million dollars. That doesn't make it a $2 million shack; it makes it a $10,000 shack with a sentimental owner.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

|9.16.05 @ 3:51PM|#

That's $1,990,000.00 worth of sentiment to you.

|9.16.05 @ 3:56PM|#

"market value" is, by definition, what a willing seller and a willing buyer agree upon.

So, no, the shack is not worth 2 million under "market value" if noone is willing to pay that much. But neither is it worth anything less, if the owner is not willing to sell it for less.

Now if you want to use the psuedo-science of real-estate appraisal, you can come to some kind of value (with a large standard deviation). Just don't call it "market value."

|9.16.05 @ 4:08PM|#

'"market value" is, by definition, what a willing seller and a willing buyer agree upon.'

No, it's not. If I convince a kid to sell me her ugly $20 bill for some shiny pennies, the market value of her $20 hasn't changed. I've ripped her off.

And if I'm feeling charitable, and tell the store owner to keep the whole $5 bill for a soda, the market value of a soda hasn't increased to $5.

If I put a For Sale $10 sign on my Civic, its value doesn't become $10.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that the market value is the average of what the buyers and sellers of a similar product agree on. The "pseudo-science" of real estate appraisal (as opposed, I guess, to the hard science of economics) may be an imperfect tool fore measuring the objective value of a property, but that doesn't make the value any less objective.

|9.16.05 @ 4:14PM|#

joe,

Its good you don't work on the stock market.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that the market value is the average of what the buyers and sellers of a similar product agree on.

Each piece of real estate is treated as a unique of property according to the law. That's why you command specific performance when a seller or buyer balks in a contract to sell property.

|9.16.05 @ 4:16PM|#

joe,

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that the market value is the average of what the buyers and sellers of a similar product agree on.

This statement in no way undermines the statement that you criticize; indeed, in all reality you are simply agreeing with quasibill.

|9.16.05 @ 4:21PM|#

quasibill,

Kind of interesting that joe uses as an example the house of a poor person. The less politically connected you are, the more they can screw you over.

|9.16.05 @ 4:28PM|#

quasibill,

Its basically what buyers and sellers will pay for it on the open market. Of course, government coerced sales at gunpoint aren't on the open market; which is the problem of the liberal use of ED for anything that strikes the government's fancy (or they can get a kickback to take for private development).

|9.16.05 @ 4:36PM|#

Joe is basically correct - otherwise you would have to believe that something given as a gift has no market value whatsoever...

|9.16.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Danimal,

No, quasibill has the correct definition.

Your assumption that value is measured merely in exchanged dollars is false.

|9.16.05 @ 4:44PM|#

Look at it this way: "market value" is the amount that you could get for something if you put it out for sale in the open market.

This doesn't mean that everything you own you necessarily wish to put out for sale on the market - but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be value attached to it if you did.

|9.16.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Danimal,

..."market value" is the amount that you could get for something if you put it out for sale in the open market.

You are basically rephrasing what I already wrote and it in no way knocks down the following statement:

"market value" is, by definition, what a willing seller and a willing buyer agree upon.

|9.16.05 @ 4:55PM|#

Hmm�maybe I�m having trouble articulating this.

Your definition is: "market value" is, by definition, what a willing seller and a willing buyer agree upon.

What I�m saying is that market value doesn�t depend on an actual willing seller � just because I am not willing to sell something doesn�t mean it has no market value. Maybe you could say that if someone is not willing to sell something, it�s because the value of the item to them personally is greater than the market value?

|9.16.05 @ 5:03PM|#

What I�m saying is that market value doesn�t depend on an actual willing seller...

Actually it does. If the seller is unwilling to sell at X price, then the market value has not been reached.

|9.16.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Joe,

I'll post a quick lesson in simple economics, because one is apparently in dire need:

Price-- it's not what you say it is, it's what the market will bear.

If the $10,000 shack owner prices his $10,000 shack at $42,000,000,000 and he gets his price, that's the price of the shack. When price is determinied by a disinterested third party, then that's not the price- that's something else entirely-- something quite sinister.. but that's another discussion.

I had a friend of mine who laughed at me when I put my 640 square foot condo on the Seattle Market for $165,000. He was convinced that the PRICE was no more than $90,000.

He was wrong. Why? Because like you, he was ignorant of market economics. He was convinced that the value of the Condo was the mere sum of its parts: wood, paint, plumbing, fixtures, carpeting etc.

Oh, my condo sold in less than 24 hours after being put on the market, so the potential price was probably somewhat higher. Something I'm mildly bummed about to this day. But life goes on.

Paul (with capital P)

|9.16.05 @ 5:10PM|#

Actually it does. If the seller is unwilling to sell at X price, then the market value has not been reached.

If that were the case, I could declare a ham sandwich to have a market value of $100,000 because I refuse to sell it for anything less. But that�s silly, and no reasonable person would think that my sandwich had that kind of value.

Especially since anybody who wanted one could go to their local deli and get one for $5. So my sandwich would be priced above market value, that�s why I wouldn�t be able sell it.

Phil|9.16.05 @ 5:13PM|#

His ox isn't being gored. It's very unlikely he'd feel that way if his property was being appropriated and at below market value which really is the whole point of eminant domain in a case like Kelo; developers not willing to pay what it would take

This is a little too close to "If it was your X who was raped and killed, you'd support the death penalty," to be a meaningful argument. It has nothing to do with the subject on its own merits but is an attempt to manipulate the other arguee's emotions to get them to your side.

If I convince a kid to sell me her ugly $20 bill for some shiny pennies, the market value of her $20 hasn't changed.

How much is a 1943 copper penny worth, joe? One cent?

|9.16.05 @ 5:14PM|#

danimal,

Again, you are confusing what you would be willing to pay, with what the seller is willing to take. Just because from your perspective the market value is too high doesn't mean that it isn't the market value of that particular item for that particular seller.

|9.16.05 @ 5:17PM|#

But Hakulyt, how could a price possibly be considered �market value� if nobody in the market is willing to pay it?

|9.16.05 @ 5:19PM|#

you're almost there danimal

|9.16.05 @ 5:20PM|#

it takes a buyer AND a seller agreeing on price

|9.16.05 @ 5:21PM|#

"how could a price possibly be considered �market value� if nobody in the market is willing to pay it?"

how could a price possibly be considered �market value� if nobody in the market is willing to at that price?

|9.16.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Danimal,

Well, since you've already stated that a reasonable person wouldn't buy it; that doesn't include the whole population of potential buyers of course.

Hell, there's a lot of modern art there which I wouldn't a penny for, but it sells for substantially higher amounts than that nevertheless.

|9.16.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Did anyone else see this at the IJ site? - http://www.ij.org/publications/liberty/2005/14_4_05_e.html

Of course, despite their victory, we should realize as joe said about the homeowner in Kelo that these hairbraiders are just stupid dupes.

|9.16.05 @ 6:24PM|#

it appears as though market value is somewhat of a myth until a valid exchange has been transacted

|9.16.05 @ 6:59PM|#

robert - exactly.

Take an macroeconomics 101 class...they teach you these simple notions on the first day.

|9.16.05 @ 7:22PM|#

"Each piece of real estate is treated as a unique of property according to the law."

So is each ping pong ball and used car. Point?

"Kind of interesting that joe uses as an example the house of a poor person." Yes, how TELLING. How very, very (yawn) telling.

Danimal, you're articulating it just fine. Hakluyt likes to play dumb.

Paul, you smug prick, you just repeated my point back to me - that the price is what the market would bear, NOT what you'd like to get for your property. Perhaps a lesson in remedial English is necessary. BTW, appraisers don't base their values on the cost of building the house, either.

Phil, a 1943 copper penny is worth what you could get for it on the open market. The fact that you wouldn't part with it for a million dollars doesn't make it worth a million dollars.

Hak, ""market value" is, by definition, what a willing seller and a willing buyer agree upon." Uh, no, because items have a market value even if the owner doesn't put them on the market. Your verb tense is wrong: market values is, by definition, what a willing buyer and a willing seller WOULD agree on.

"it appears as though market value is somewhat of a myth until a valid exchange has been transacted" Wow, those banks giving out home equity loans are really stupid! They're lending out money secured by a property that has NO VALUE (since the property isn't being put up for sale).

|9.16.05 @ 7:24PM|#

Economics 101 - you know, I've heard this crazy rumor that they actually teach more than one semester's worth of economics at some colleges, because the simple principles taught in the first semester aren't adequate, without further refinement, to explain how the economy works.

People who base their worldview on freshman econ are roughly as annoying as those who base it on freshman world history, and more likely to be wrong.

|9.16.05 @ 7:35PM|#

IF the economic value of a property only exists when a willing seller finds a willing buyer, and

IF not such meeting ever occurred in regards to Suzette Kelo's property,

THEN Ms. Kelo's property had no value,

AND just compensation for her land is $0.

It's a good thing that the first proposition in this syllogism is complete nonsense.

|9.16.05 @ 7:40PM|#

it seems to be an almost semantic argument over appraised value and market value.

the appraised value is what banks and tax entities use to decide what my new house is worth

the market value is what i actually paid for it

|9.16.05 @ 7:43PM|#

robert, what you paid for it, + appreciation over time, of course.

Appraised value is an approximation of market value, which uses an imperfect tool for measuring the real market value.

|9.16.05 @ 7:48PM|#

the bank appraised my house(recently enough to disregard appreciation or depreciation) at 92k

the county values it for taxes at 43K
i bought it for 75K

my neighbor just bought almost identical house next door for 125K

what is the market value for my house?

|9.16.05 @ 7:54PM|#

answer: market value will be exactly what i can get someone to pay me for it

joe,
good definition of appraised value.
i think that is what most people are talking about here, but loosely throwing in the term market value leads to the confusion.

|9.16.05 @ 8:33PM|#

In my state (West Virginia)the Republican minority started a push to tighten eminent domain rules.
When I mentioned to my Democrat representative that his party is losing an opportunity and remarked that they needn't expect to do well in the future if they didn't get off their behinds and learned new thinking, I met with utter non-comprehension. Sad.
They don't get this issue, the Reps don't get it that poor non-voters are citizens too that deserve attention in time of need and they definitely didn't get the warnings against going to war.
Vote Libertarian!

|9.16.05 @ 10:37PM|#

It seems to me the actual value of anything is only known for sure when a buyer and a seller actually agree on price. Otherwise it is just potential. Absent a sale the proper value can only be guessed at, an educated guess perhaps, especially if there are sales of similiar property recently. Threfore such appraisals of value are not the price that a buyer and seller WOULD agree on, but what they are LIKELY to agree on, given the current known activity of the market.

|9.17.05 @ 1:10AM|#

joe, for something to be objective, it really must exist independently of perception.

Thus an object that is one meter long has a length that remains wether or not a human being is there to observe it.

Value is a concept that resides purely within the human mind. There is no such thing as objective value. Rather, there are billions of impressions of subjective values.

The notion of figuring the objective value of things has plagued economics ever since Adam Smith coined the labour theory of value. It is doomed to failure, because nothing has an intrinsic value outside of the desire of a human being to posess it when it is scarce.

Additionally, value is the product of comparing objects. It is ordinal. I value my bicycle more than my car, for example. We can only gauge value of objects in terms relative to other objects.

If I were to trade object A (a piece of paper inscribed with the words $20.00) to my brother for B (a DVD), it implies that I value the DVD more than the piece of paper, and my brother values the piece of paper more than the DVD. Actually, my brother probably does not value the piece of paper so much as the good time he will have at a night-club as he exchanges the piece of paper for the privilege of entry and some alcoholic beverages.

Thus, the DVD is not worth $20.00. Obviously, to me it is worth more, and to my brother it is worth less.

The market price is a fiction arising out of how markets with multiple buyers and sellers work. If the seller reduces his or her asking price, the number of potential buyers who would be interested in making a purchase usually goes up (Izod T-Shirts are a famous example where this was not the case). Over time, especially when competing with multiple other sellers hawking the same or simillar wares, the seller will find a price set point at which he can move all his stock while allowing him to reap an acceptable rate of profit. If he reduces his price further, he will run out of stock, and if he raises his price, his net sales will go down as he sells fewer units.

When people talk about the market price, it is this value they are referring to. This price is not the value of the object, since the value of the object is whatever the owner says it is. Rather it is a convenient fiction to reduce a complex statistic to a single number.

So, in your scenario of the bank loaning money with a house offered up as collateral, the bank is loaning x dollars with the intention of receiving y dollars back in the future. Should the recipient of the loan default, the bank will then become the owner of the house and the bank officials will assign some value to the house. The bank's expectation of being able to sell the house in no way proves that the house has an objective value. It merely reflects what the bank guesses is the house's value to them in relation to the risk inherent in the proferred loan.

The outrage of eminent domain, and I am uncompromisingly opposed to it in all its forms, is that the officials carrying it out seek to compell the owner of a property to "Sell" it at a value that is too low for the seller. I'll be happy to stipulate that the compensation may be equal to what they would have had to settle for had they wanted to quickly sell the land. However, the sum of dollars offered will be less than what the owners thought the property worth, since the officials othewise wouldn't have to threaten the owners with violence to make the deal go through.

The fiction that this is not an extortion and robbery is dependent upon the belief that the owners of the siezed property are not being aggressed upon which in turn is dependent on the fiction that this was a beneficial deal to property owners. However, the property owners clearly do not think it is beneficial, since if they liked the deal, government planners wouldn't have to threaten them with guns, clubs and tasers to force them to accept it.

I apologize for the harsh thing I am about to write, but I fear I cannot make my point without being blunt.

The notion that the victims of eminent domain were participants in a fair trade is as obscenely absurd as the notion that the sexual act in an incident of date rape was consensual. To claim that they are somehow better off onemust completely ignore the fact that they didn't want it to happen to them in the first place!

|9.17.05 @ 6:06AM|#

Hakluyt: "Each piece of real estate is treated as a unique of property according to the law."

joe: "So is each ping pong ball and used car. Point?"

For what it's worth at this late hour, here's a lesson in Property Law 101 (he he). NO, each ping pong ball and used car are NOT unique under the law. Real property has a special status. Property law recognizes that each and every piece of land, no matter how similar or proximate to other pieces of land, is one of a kind and cannot be perfectly replaced. Chattels are not only different because of their portability, but because they are reproducible. One ping pong ball is the same as the next. This is why the vast majority of case law in property concerns real property, as any 1st year law student will attest.

To illustrate the truly special status of land, my prop law professor (long ago and far away) once asked whether certain chattels could be considered "as unique as" land. His example was the Mona Lisa. Surely that, if anything, must be considered unique? The answer: not in common law. It is at least conceivable that an exact copy of the Mona Lisa could be made, but there will only ever be one "half acre plot at the corner of 2nd and Manila Streets, Jersey City, NJ."

For purposes of thinking about ED, understanding this point is important. Just remember, whenever govt takes a piece of real property from anyone, that person cannot possibly replace it--no matter how much money he gets for it. It is impossible to do so by legal definition.

|9.17.05 @ 6:26AM|#

For even less than it's worth at this hour...

Back in the dream world of law school, we once went off on a wild tangent regarding property law and speculated about what would happen to ED in a floating city. Don't laugh. There are people around the world who live in small floating communities. Imagine a city where all the buildings are boats and all the streets are the water between the boats. We speculated that ED in such a place would not need to involve the seizure of property, rather its mere relocation. Suppose govt wanted to "construct" a new "road" (i.e., they wanted to clear a new waterway between boats): it would only be necessary to push certain boats out of the way; all the homeowner would lose would be his position relative to other boats. Ideal, no?

Then our curmudgeonly prof pointed out that, while this new definition of ED (the power of govt to push aside private property, but not destroy it) might solve many of the problems inherent in ED, it would still not alter the uniqueness of real property. Position relative to other property is one thing which makes each piece of land (or water in this scenario) unique. If we had trouble accepting this concept, our lovable old prof admonished us to think of real property not as dirt or water, but rather as the space within a set of coordinates.

I've been up since 5:00. Please forgive me for this....

Phil|9.17.05 @ 7:44AM|#

Phil, a 1943 copper penny is worth what you could get for it on the open market.

But you just said above that even if I could get a little girl to give me a $20 bill for five cents, it wouldn't change the market value of the $20. So is a 1943 copper penny worth one cent, or some other number?

NO, each ping pong ball and used car are NOT unique under the law.

Um, even given the unique status of real property under the law, I wouldn't recommend filing the VIN off of a used car to test this theory.

|9.17.05 @ 8:02AM|#

Phil, you're quite the smartass.

Well done!

Anyway, the point was just that real property has a highly priveleged status in common law. I told you, I've been up since 5!

|9.17.05 @ 8:42AM|#

joe,

So is each ping pong ball and used car. Point?

Actually, you're wrong on that. Do look up the term "specific performance." Stop pretending you know something about the law.

JMoore,

joe knows just enough about the law to demonstrate his ignorance.

|9.17.05 @ 12:37PM|#

robert, you are correct, we can't know for certain what the market value of your house it unless you sell it. We can only produce an approximate number. But that doesn't mean your house has no market value until you sell it - it does have a market value, we just don't know exactly what it is.

|9.17.05 @ 12:46PM|#

tarran, "Value is a concept that resides purely within the human mind. There is no such thing as objective value. Rather, there are billions of impressions of subjective values."

I agree that this is true in a theoretic sense. In the same way, nothing is really solid, man, because most of the volume of an atom is empty space.

"Should the recipient of the loan default, the bank will then become the owner of the house and the bank officials will assign some value to the house." No, they will not "assign some value to the house." The house will have a value, a market value, and the bank will make an educated guess at what that value is.

"The bank's expectation of being able to sell the house in no way proves that the house has an objective value." Well, I suppose only the actual sale of the house will prove its value definitively. Nonetheless, the bank knows that house has some value, and can usually make a pretty good guess at what that value is. Once again, you are using the imprecision of the measurement, and concluding that the thing being measured doesn't exist.

"The fiction that this is not an extortion and robbery is dependent upon the belief that the owners of the siezed property are not being aggressed upon..." no, it is dependent upon the reality that the "aggression," intrusion, complusion, whatever you want to call it, is legally authorized. "...which in turn is dependent on the fiction that this was a beneficial deal to property owners." Once again, no. The justification for Eminent Domain is not that the state is doing something beneficial for the forced sellers, but that they are acting 1) for the public good and 2) according to the powers, and within the limitations, prescribed by law. Nobody claims that taking people's property against their wished makes the takees better off - it is a use of brute force against the unwilling, it is a harm even if they are made whole in an economic sense, and it should be avoided when possible for that reason.

|9.17.05 @ 12:51PM|#

JMoore, good explaination of "unique real property." And you are correct, no piece of property can be replaced with an exact duplicate. The only thing the government can replace is its economic value.

Phil, "But you just said above that even if I could get a little girl to give me a $20 bill for five cents, it wouldn't change the market value of the $20. So is a 1943 copper penny worth one cent, or some other number?" The situation I described is not an "open" market, but one in which other buyers and sellers cannot participate, and the information available to the seller is artificially restricted, by my design, by means of buttonholing an ignorant child.

|9.17.05 @ 12:57PM|#

joe

Thanks. Just to clarify: I am not taking a position in the big Kelo firestorm. I just like to recall all the theoretical legal discussions I used to take seriously.

It would only be in the wildest libertarian utopia where ED would be unnecessary at some point. Not that its use shouldn't be very restricted.

|9.17.05 @ 1:01PM|#

joe,

No, what the government does (that means you) is steal your property because they know how better to allocate it than you do. Its a paternalist mindset so common amongst government bureaucrats.

BTW, real property is considered unique whether you put the term "unique" in front of it or not. You're a land planner and you don't know these basic rules regarding the common law's view of real property? Woe unto to the poor bastards who have to do deal with your tyrannical policy decisions.

The justification for Eminent Domain is not that the state is doing something beneficial for the forced sellers, but that they are acting 1) for the public good and 2) according to the powers, and within the limitations, prescribed by law.

Wrong. The justification (dating back to ED's usage in English common law) is that owners of property could simply refuse to sell. Seem some of Sir Edward Coke's (16th and 17th century jurist) decisions on these matters. Man you're a dumbfuck.

...and it should be avoided when possible for that reason.

That's never been your attitude.

|9.17.05 @ 1:11PM|#

"No, what the government does (that means you) is steal your property because they know how better to allocate it than you do. Its a paternalist mindset so common amongst government bureaucrats."

You're still not there. It isn't that the government knows better how to allocate it, it's that the government is interested in allocating in a way that serves the public interest, and a private property owner is interested in allocating it in a way that serves his private interest. I'm sure private owners can do an excellent job disposing of their properties for the public good when they want to - it happens quite often (conservation grants, donations to charity, etc etc etc). But, for obvious reasons, private parties pursue a different set of interests than the public sector.

Your second point doesn't even make sense - government is authorized to take land just because it's good to take land from people who don't want to sell it? The eminent domain power has nothing to do with achieving public goals? Huh? Would you care to try that again?

"That's never been your attitude." The very first comment on the thread that announced the Supreme Court's Kelo decision was mine, and it read, "Well, it may be legal to do this, but that doesn't make it right." I've made a number of similar comments, both before and after that thread. Perhaps the liberal en votre tete feels differently than me. You do tend to get us confused.

|9.17.05 @ 1:21PM|#

joe,

...it's that the government is interested in allocating in a way that serves the public interest...

Which is just like saying that it knows best how to allocate it. Your argument stupidly assumes that what a private landowner is doing has no public interest. Indeed, it arrogantly assumes, in a proper good Stalinist fashion, that only the government has any idea as to what is and is not in the "public interest." You're such a miserable wretch of a human being.

...government is authorized to take land just because it's good to take land from people who don't want to sell it?

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. The primary justification of ED since its inception is that barring its use private landowners could simply refuse to give up their land to the government. The flowery and ultimately ignored language about "public use" and the like was merely a means to limit its usage. Kind of hurts to know the origins of your slimy ways. Again, I direct you to jurist Coke; if you have a problem with his rationale I suggest you take take it up with him.

"Well, it may be legal to do this, but that doesn't make it right."

Right. Sure. Whatever you say limousine liberal.

|9.17.05 @ 1:36PM|#

Have you ever noticed that the level of your discourse declines along with your fortunes in any given debate?

Wretch, Stalinist, stupid, limosine liberal.

You waive accusations of communism like way soldiers waive white flags.

|9.17.05 @ 1:50PM|#

Joe,

I think I was unclear as to why I claim that there is no such thing as objective value. I am not relying on the imprecisions of measurements.

My argument is that assigning something an objective value is as futile as assigning something an objective prettiness, since the two concepts are products of the human mind and have no basis in reality.

We may all agree that Grace Kelly is pretty, bu that does not mean that she objectively is pretty. I'm sure that there are places on earth where she would be described as hideously pale, and that would be just as valid an assignment of prettiness.

We can't assign an index of prettiness saying that Grace Kelly is a 15.6 and Sandra Bernhardt is a -2.4. The idea is patently absurd.

The price of an object is not its value. The price of an object offered for sale means that the seller values the price demanded more than the object for sale. If a buyer ponies up and pays the price it means he values the items he exchanges less than that thing which he is purchasing.

Things only have value in relation to other objects in a given person's mind and each person alive has their own different conclusions as to the relative values of the objects.

I should apologize for mistakenly concluding that you were arguing that the owners were not worse off. Many moons ago, you made the claim that the state often leaves people whose property it seizes better off by setting them up in a better location. This, I fear stuck to my mind and led me to conclude that one of the pillars supporting your support for eminent domain was this beneficence. Since you are not making such a claim, I apologize for implying that you were.

I am opposed to eminent domain on moral grounds. Your claim that taking something for the common good is OK if done lawfully is unconvincing because a) one can craft laws to make anything lawful, and b) the notion of ?public good? is I think an empty one.

To me lawfulness is a bit of an empty concept. It was lawful at one time for one man to claim ownership of another and to beat him or even kill him if he refused to submit. That does not make it either moral or a good idea. The disgusting spectacle of the U.S. Congress passing laws regarding Terry Schiavo demonstrated that legislators can pass a law approving anything under the sun so long as the judges go along. So to me, the lawfulness of an act is absolutely irrelevant to its morality. An immoral act that is legally sanctioned is still wrong.

Now let us turn to my dismissal of ?public goods?. Actually, I cannot really justify it since I do not actually understand what specifically is a public good? How is it different than a non-public good. What exactly are you referring to by the noun good? Is it an object as in the phrase ?manufactured goods? or is it something else?

Could you explain what you mean by that phrase? I apologize if you have already done that.

|9.17.05 @ 1:51PM|#

What the heck happened to my quotation marks?

|9.17.05 @ 2:01PM|#

joe,

But my fortunes haven't declined.

Anyone who claims that only the government knows the public interest (which you have done) is bordering Stalinism. The fact that you're hung by your words isn't my fault, its yours.

|9.17.05 @ 2:04PM|#

joe,

Oh, and I think you're a scumbag no matter what portion of a debate we are in.

Had you ever even heard of Coke before I mentioned him? I doubt it. Most paper pushers such as yourself are generally ignorant of the corrupt historical development of governmental powers.

|9.17.05 @ 3:00PM|#

tarran,

"Public good" means whatever the government tells you that it means. In the end, to folks like joe, the government is your parent and knows best when it comes to your property.

|9.18.05 @ 9:33PM|#

tarran, "Many moons ago, you made the claim that the state often leaves people whose property it seizes better off by setting them up in a better location."

I must have left you with the wrong impression. I recall making the comment, in response to someone claiming that the government usually underpays, significantly, for land it takes. I pointed out that, in fact, the government usually ends up paying more than the owner could get in an open sale, through a higher negotiated purchase price and relocation expenses, in order to avoid expense litigation and delays. I wasn't making any particular point when I wrote this, just refuting one.

|9.18.05 @ 9:37PM|#

tarran, by "public good," I mean a good, or benefit, that accrues to the public, or a public, rather than to a private party, or parties, in particular.

Like the "objective value" I referred to earlier, or the solidity of objects consisting of atoms, this concept is probably open to criticism on rarefied, philosophical refutation.

Nonetheless, it's "good enough for government work." Heidegger's thing (or object, I don't remember the details) didn't come into being until it was observed, and Schroedinger's cat dies if you look in the box, and Sartre certainly won't judge who you essentially are until the moment of your death...nonetheless, we manage to operate in the objective world, and that's good enough for me.

|9.18.05 @ 10:07PM|#

Joe, would you be so kind as to comment on my argument comparing measuring value to measuring prettiness? Why do you think value has an existence independently of the human mind whereas prettiness does not? That is, assuming you agree with me on the latter.

I am sorry to say that I don't quite see what the boundry between a public good and a nonpublic good are. Could you give me some hair-splitting examples? I ask this because my reaction to reading your explanation is that anything could be described as a public good, so I know I've misunderstood you. It may seem obvious to you, but to me it is a very alien concept, so I need all the help I can get; I don't want to waste both of our times by attacking a strawman.

|9.18.05 @ 10:14PM|#

My first thought is that there actually is a measurement for value - the dollar. A real, applicable means of stating the value of something. Consisting of uniform, measureable measurements, the values of two things can actually be compared. That's a pretty big distinction with prettiness.

And the fact that something is socially constructed doesn't mean it has no objective existence or significance. Marriage is socially constructed. Money is socially constructed. They're still very real.

And I'm sorry, I don't feel like going all the way back to the difference between public and private. It's been a long day.

|9.19.05 @ 9:07AM|#

joe,

I pointed out that, in fact, the government usually ends up paying more than the owner could get in an open sale...

Prove it.

I mean a good, or benefit, that accrues to the public, or a public, rather than to a private party, or parties, in particular.

That's not the proper definition of a "public good." Public goods are characterized by their non-exclusivity, not by where a particular benefit accrues.

Thanks for butchering Heidegger's phenomenology.

tarran,

joe would have to understand how a public good is defined before he could give you examples. In my economics courses the classic example of a public good was that of the light of a street lamp.

|9.19.05 @ 10:00AM|#

Ah yes, how foolish of me, I didn't use the exact terms Hak remembers from his text book while making my point.

"Non-exclusivity" vs. "benefits accrue to the public, not to private parties." What a vast distinction.

And no, I'm not going to put in the time trying to compare the compensation packages of taken properties with what those properties would have sold for in an alternative universe. I know it's common practice to slip the owners of targetted properties a little something extra so they'll go quietly, and you can believe me, disbelieve me, or do your own research, as you wish.

|9.19.05 @ 6:55PM|#

But, for obvious reasons, private parties pursue a different set of interests than the public sector.

You all know that no one here is getting up in arms because the government had to buy someone's house to put in a new elementary school or build a bypass. The government takes property from one private owner, deciding for themselves what it's worth, and gives it to a second private owner. The only difference is that the government thinks that the second owner has better aims, which is to say the government believes that the second owner will attract rich white people that will give them a good tax base and glossy pictures to put on their Chamber of Commerce brochures.