Halfway to Socialized Medicine
 

That sound, I think, is the thrashing from club's seizure, brought to him by the Bush Administration. Medic!

Halfway to Socialized Medicine
 

I'm amused that we are getting the crap side of socialized medicine without any of the advantages. I would say "heh" except it's just . . . so . . . bad.

Halfway to Socialized Medicine
 

It's good you're finding other ways to be amused, now that the whole sex toy thing has been proven to be illegal.

bad news, club
 

From an economic perspective, we can assume that the two are fungible, since displaced workers will surely use the money rationally in the way that makes them best off -- perhaps to buy job retraining on the private market.

See Thomas Sowell in Capitalism Magazine ("In defense of individual rights"), here.

Halfway to Socialized Medicine
 

I don't distribute. I think the ban is on distribution, not possession. I think I'm under the limit over which you are presumed to be a distributor.

bad news, club
 

If I understand your objection correctly, it goes to whether there is a benefit, not to whether the benefit is public or private. You are not a conservative, but this would be an odd position for a conservative to take in the Connecticut case, since most conservatives are in favor of things like urban renewal. I agree that if there is no public benefit, eminent domain is inappropriate. In that case, private interests with sway are pulling government levers for their own ends. But in the Connecticut case, I think everyone accepts that the town will benefit from the development, and only thing that seems odd about the case is that it's doing this solely through private means.

OK, but not because the Constitution requires it. I'm just talking about how the government ought to set the price.

bad news, club
 

If only that were true

bad news, club
 

Wait, how is your market system working if people aren't rational?

I'm. So. Confused.

bad news, club
 

Although this may be true in the abstract, I think you will have a hard time finding a conservative that would choose urban renewal over individual property rights.

Summers
 

I'm not bothering to stp here, but I think much of the objection to what he said is that he wasn't speaking "as an academic." He was speaking as the President of Harvard. If he hadn't been the President of Harvard, no one would have invited him, as an economist, even a distinguished economist and former Treasury Secretary, to address a conference about those issues in the sort of off-the-cuff way that he did. If he'd made those remarks as an economist, people would have thought that his remarks were shallow, and that he showed some gall by showing up at a conference where people have actually been doing research, etc. on these questions, and simply riffing on "what could possibly be true." Whether right or wrong, such musing doesn't advance the ball much.

He also seems blind to the idea that socialization might have a role, outside of socialization by parents. Belle Waring and some others have put this much better than I can -- I'll try to link to what I'm thinking of.

And the fact that the Harvard faculty is going after him now -- the only thing keeping the story alive, as far as I can tell -- surely has more to do with his particularly ham-handed way of running the University than with these particular comments, which have given his critics an opportunity.

bad news, club
 

I openly acknowledge that the problem with any market theory is that it rests on the faulty assumption that people will act rationally, though I don't think it applies in this case. People, acting rationally, would likely use the government compensation to pay bills or their mortgage instead of job training.

bad news, club
 

If someone is compensated for the taking, what's the problem?

If they think they're better off that way, what's the problem?

To sum up: Property owners know better than the government. The government knows better than workers.

Interesting Proposal on Immigration
 

• Given these realities of free immigration, the best alternative to the present quota system is an ancient way of allocating a scarce and popular good; namely, by charging a price that clears the market. That is why I believe countries should sell the right to immigrate, especially the United States that has so many persons waiting to immigrate. To illustrate how a price system would work, suppose the United States charges $50,000 for the right to immigrate, and agrees to accept all applicants willing to pay that price, subject to a few important qualifications. These qualifications would require that those accepted not have any serious diseases, or terrorist backgrounds, or criminal records.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/index.html

bad news, club
 

They are entirely rational. Drugs and hot cars are way more satisfying than retraining programs.

bad news, club
 

Because we can only value objectively, whereas people hold their items of value on a subjective basis.

bad news, club
 

The problem is that conservatives value the protection of property rights over urban renewal. It is not just the monetary value, but the value of the right as well.

bad news, club
 

You forgot hookers

bad news, club
 

As Burger says, you're talking about regulatory takings. If the government seizes your property and doesn't let you on it, you should be compensated. If the government drives a slightly louder truck once a day on a nearby road, slightly increasing the noise pollution and thereby diminishing the value of the property, you shouldn't be compensated. We probably agree at both of those extremes. Drawing the line in the middle is tough. What's the principled basis?

Many conservatives see some principled basis in distinguishing between the character of the government action: e.g., regulatory action is a taking, but when the government curtails your property through the common law or by acting like a private actor would (e.g., driving that truck), no taking. This makes no sense to me -- I don't see a principled basis for thinking about takings this way. The common law is as much government action as a new regulation.

Skeks' point, as I understand it, is not about rights. He's just saying that if you think property owners should be compensated when the government does something that benefits the public generally but the costs of which fall on a discrete set of people (property owners), it's not a big logical leap to say that when that something is opening free trade, why not similarly help the few who get screwed (displaced workers)?

And the conservative answer is that property owners should have rights, while workers should get screwed by open markets. At least y'all are being clear about this.

No. No one thinks that.

That's a good idea, too. Let us stand hand-in-hand and wait for the day when Republicans advocate spending money to make the educational system for everyone the best possible. Your governor here in California has other plans, however.

But that's a different question than the one we were talking about.

bad news, club
 

And yet we manage to build airports and schools all the time.

If this is just a squabble about whether, as a practical matter, governments pay people enough as compensation for takings, I'll agree that they probably don't. But that's a question of practice, not principle. Sometimes it costs money to vindicate other rights, too. That's how we all make our living.

bad news, club
 

If you're getting compensated for the market value of your property -- fairly, let's suppose -- and for things like relocation, what about the property right isn't being protected? Your argument is circular: Why do you oppose urban renewal in this case? Because you want to protect property rights. What's to the property right if someone is compensated? It's the right not to have your property taken for urban renewal.

bad news, club
 

Ah, it's fun to watch the screw turn sometimes.

Remember, conservativism today is big government conservatism, not the libertarian conservatism that was hip back in the 80s, or the snooty upper-class conservatism of the 50s. Ty is hearkening back to 50s conservatives "cleaning out the slums" and you're hearkening back to President Marlboro Man.

Today, it's all about what big goverment can do for the Friends of George. Property rights? That what the Repubs advocate for Iraq. Otherwise, get the little guys out of the way of progress.

And, Ty, I wouldn't buy that a private development will necessarily have sufficient public benefits as described. Remember, I'm the kind of guy who questions whether a sports stadium meets the test (though, of course, I'd concede an Art Museum will almost always meet the test). I just have real questions about whether a few condos and a Dunkin Donuts get you there.

bad news, club
 

That's what the retraining programs are all about.

bad news, club
 

You're back to absolutes.

I'm talking about a balancing test. If the call is close, I'd rule against emminent domain. I think the power should be used sparingly and with caution, because it impinges on other rights.

The government cannot demand whatever I have based on their willingness to pay me fair market value. I have no doubt that putting my Tom Seaver rookie card in a sports museum would have public benefit, but I do not believe government should be able to force me to do it. Do you?

bad news, club
 

It's not. That's a different issue. Issue here is, our country (through the Constitution) professes a higher degree of attention to the value of the individual over the group than other countries have historically embraced. One of the touchstones of that concept lies in our right, over the right of our limited government, to retain our property. We allow, as an extreme exception, our government to take some things from us (with compensation) only on a rather high showing of public need. Not just benefit, but need. (I'm speaking of tradition here, not recent jurisprudence.)

Lately, it's degenerated to "benefit". Kelo is the best recent attempt to wind this "group over individual" attitude back.

bad news, club
 

I was responding to club with that post, not you.

I agree that eminent domain should be used sparingly, and I suspect that it is, because property is expensive, and government budgets are the subject of much, um, attention.

On your Tom Seaver hypo, given your premises, I disagree: the government should be able to force you to do it, but must compensate you for it. I want to fight the premise that there is a public benefit, but it's your hypo. And I tend to think that any minimal public benefit will not exceed the government's cost to compensate you, suggesting that a rational government will not do that sort of thing.

Suppose that the government wants to have rail service between Middletown and Murphysville, and there's no rail line there now. In fact, all the property on the possible routes is owned by a variety of private parties. Suppose that the value of having a rail link is clear -- it's too short for air service, the roads are jammed, etc. And suppose that the government concludes that the most efficient way to get this line built and running is to let private companies bid to build, own and operate it. Is exercising the power of eminent domain in this case not permitted because the government is going to sell the land to a private party? Does the Constitution require the government to own and/or operate the rail line itself to get this done? Because that seems a little odd, and it seems particularly odd that anti-government, pro-privatization advocates like club would by the people forcing this principle on us.

bad news, club
 

I don't understand where you disagree with me as a question of constitutional principle, particularly because this distinction between "benefit" and "need" sounds formalist and elusive. I suggest that the concern you raise should not be imported into the constitution through Scalia-like judicial activism, but should inform when legislatures actually exercise the powers they have.

And what's your answer to the rail hypo I just spun to G3?

bad news, club
 

It really is. those are the words that have become the trigger words, but I don't think they really work well. What is at issue is the idea that it should be really, really hard for our government to take something away from me. Government should have to meet an incredibly high burden in order to do so, a burden that almost amounts to "we, the entire community, must absolutely have this in order to maintain our way of life, and there is no other way to do this without John's back yard." But, "need" and "benefit" fit into court opinions better than all of that.

I think that this concept was historically "found" in the Constitution, and it is only more recent caselaw that has allowed the takings to expand in scope and ease.

bad news, club
 

not gov't-financed urban renewal.

Summers
 

A fair point. It's a bit like having the attorney general, or the head of the FTC, or SEC, preface remarks with "these are my own and don't necessarily represent the views of hte agency." yeah, right.

bad news, club
 

It's the right to control disposition, which has long been recognized as having some value. Bear in mind that property is unique, and is recognized as such. One can't breach a contract for sale of property and pay merely damages to escape (well, if the damages are high enough to settle the case you can).

Summers
 

No, no. I'll try to find the article, but he made a big point, before he would accept the invitation, about what he would be representing. He was specifically NOT speaking for the school.

bad news, club
 

My objections stem from the extremely high value I place on property rights, mainly because property rights are our greatest check on government power. The only thing worse than the government taking my property is the government taking my property and giving it to someone else.

Summers
 

I understand what he said (or may have said). But my point (and Ty's) is that that doesn't matter. He is the president of Harvard, and even if he says he's not, or he's not acting in that capacity, people will still recognize that he is, at the end of the speech, the president of Harvard, and holds the views he just expressed on his own behalf. And if those views are cause for concern, they are even more so if held by the president of harvard (if it weren't such a second-rate institution)

bad news, club
 

I think that's more offensive, but I'm not sure it's worse. The soviet union just took property--not such a good result either.

bad news, club
 

You are only being compensated for the value of the property, you are not being compensated for the right to control the property. The right to control the property has value and is separate and distinct from the value of the property itself.

Think about it in terms of economic value and dispositive value of property placed in trust.

Summers
 

Mistake Number One, big time. You can't hold a top job in any major organization and just wake up and say, "I'm taking that hat off for a bit- forget I'm CEO of X."

There are people in the Bush administration who think about invading Iran. There should be, and there are under any administration. You've got to be up on all the possible scenarios.

But, the President does not stand up and say, "Let's think about invading Iran." He does not say, "Look, this isn't me talking as President, but me shooting the breeze with a bunch of Yahoos in Ohio; let's talk about invading I-ran." When you have a job like that, the questions you ask are important.

One of the big parts of Sommer's job is utilizing his bully pullpit in the best way. He didn't.

Summers, Summers, Summers; turns me upside down
 

Unless you're consciously equating him to the seller of the Thigh Master (which might be appropriate), check your spelling.

Summers
 

Just for the record, all statements made by me on this board are in my individual capacity and should not be imputed to my office of World Ruler.

bad news, club
 

Rail hypo is easy: If there is a determination that we need a public route for access between two towns, that is exactly the sort of public need that eminent domain was intended to ease. Now, as long as the rail route is going to be available as a public accomodation (yes, for cost), I view it as a public benefit. If you were to tell me that we would permit the railroad to enter into arrangements to agree to only transport Company Y's materials, and to refuse transport to Company X, or that the railroad could decide to exclude all Scandanavians, then I would no longer agree.

But why do you want the government to have my Tom Seaver card? They can go on e-bay any day and buy a Tom Seaver card -- why should they get mine.

We interrupt this economics discussion for a cheap political shot.
 

As a Republican and a Bush supporter I still have to admit that is the funniest Bumper Sticker I have heard of in years. Classic.