tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post933822896167219560..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Eminent Domain vs. BankingGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-36755558096433628782013-08-28T03:49:27.023-06:002013-08-28T03:49:27.023-06:00The problem with your further question is that the...The problem with your further question is that the purpose of our government isn't to protect the rights of anyone who isn't a citizen. Innocents in a country we have declared war with are indeed in danger, due to the actions of that enemy, from our efforts to defend ourselves. This is not the same thing as our government deciding to violate the rights of its own citizens. If the government should ever commandeer property, as in your example, the conditions under which it should ever do so should be far more restrictive than eminent domain.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-5998249044612207182013-08-27T09:24:22.701-06:002013-08-27T09:24:22.701-06:00Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You wouldn't...Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You wouldn't "violate the rights" of an innocent person to protect your own? I would. It's collateral damage - no different than dropping bombs on a known Nazi headquarters, or an Islamic terrorist camp, even though there is a grade school next door. If no other strategic option is possible, so be it. The violated rights of those innocents are on the Nazi's and terrorist's hands, not America's.Grantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-43578767447024870642013-08-27T04:37:47.072-06:002013-08-27T04:37:47.072-06:00"I would support the seizure of the property ..."<i>I would support the seizure of the property not for his sake, or even my own (which are both legitimate reasons), but if only just for the sake of the individuals who constitute 'the military.' They should be able to defend their own rights...</i>" [your emphasis omitted]<br /><br />I would have to think more about this example to definitively rule out the military use of the land, but I am inclined to disagree for the same basic reason that I am against the draft -- even of someone who would be a great general, like a George Washington. <br /><br />We have an inalienable right to our lives, liberty, and property. If the government drafts him (or anyone), it will have shown itself unfit to govern. If he doesn't see the need to volunteer, then (assuming the cause is deserving and he isn't better able to defend himself as, say the industrialist building our arsenal), he doesn't deserve his freedom. (And I still have no right to attempt to make him fight for mine.) I also see the land seizure as similar to taxation, which Rand was against. <br /><br />In any event, even if I were to see limited seizures -- I'd call it "commandeering" and not "eminent domain" -- as legitimate (on a temporary basis, perhaps?) in times of emergency, I'd disagree with the reasons you give. No individual's rights trump another's.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-51727370964415874812013-08-26T23:19:44.965-06:002013-08-26T23:19:44.965-06:00Imminent domain isn't completely wrong. It ha...Imminent domain isn't completely wrong. It has legitimacy in some - very limited - contexts. Say, for example, that the navy of a hostile foreign power is sailing for our shores. The military has looked at the situation and has determined that there is a particular piece of land that is strategically crucial for the country's defense (a radar station or missile silo or whatever). That piece of land just so happens to be owned by a person who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to sell it. I think that in this instance it would be legitimate for the government to seize that land. If that person can not - or will not - understand that the sanctity of his right to private property will be violated <i>anyway</i> once the foreign power (successfully, because of his decision not to sell) invades, then - quite frankly - <i>screw him.</i> I would support the seizure of the property not for his sake, or even my own (which are both legitimate reasons), but if only just for the sake of the individuals who constitute "the military." They should be able to defend <i>their own rights,</i> and the fact that they have to violate the land owner's rights in order to do so does not make it immoral (it would be immoral <i>not</i> to, IMO). It is collateral damage, and it's a decision is being made under duress. The blame for the rights violation lies with the foreign power, not the US Government.<br /><br />Just food for thought.Grantnoreply@blogger.com