A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ty,

As I read it, you're arguing against a balancing test by positing an absolute -- that the government has the right to use emminent domain to benefit private citizens as long as the government determines there is a public benefit. What Club and I (boy, I don't type that much) are saying is that public benefit should be narrowly construed and should be something clearly available to the public at large.

Put a different way, the government might take my land and give it to you, because it would be a public benefit for you to have it to raise your pretty rosebushes on it, while in my hands the place looks like a dump with broken down cars out front and no paint for the last 10 years. Is that an appropriate use of emminent domain, if the only public benefit is the view from the street? What if the only public benefit is that you're a nice guy and I'm a pain in the ass? Should anyone, like a court, ever get to second guess the party in power on these issues?

It's all about the balance. I'd narrowly construe the power.

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.

This, of course, bears no relationship to what happens in an eminent domain case. Government sets the price, and you can bear the cost of litigating or take the price. This lets the price be set low.

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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

If only that were true

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If only that were true

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

I'm. So. Confused.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not asking if he was wrong on the substantive point. I'm asking whether he, as an academic, was wrong to openly consider what could possibly be true, as well as the reaction.

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.

Originally posted by Burger
In reading the transcript, he seemed to go beyond posing the question, and posited the answer, without any real support (the excerpt I read, IIRC, basically was "there are three possible reasons--it can't be discrim., because we've taken steps to root that out; it might be a bit hours, but we see women achieve succes in other fields, so that's probably not it; third is inate differences, and because the other explanations are out, this must be the dominant reason." Uh, yeah, that's logical reasoning.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wait, how is your market system working if people aren't rational?

I'm. So. Confused.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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

People, acting rationally, would likely use the government compensation to pay bills or their mortgage instead of job training.

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.

[sgtclub]

• 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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wait, how is your market system working if people aren't rational?

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If someone is compensated for the taking, what's the problem?

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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
They are entirely rational. Drugs and hot cars are way more satisfying than retraining programs.

You forgot hookers

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Every thing taken to its extreme is crazy. But I have read about developers who buy a piece of property and then the government decides that nothing can be built on it. Usually because of a lawsuit by an environmental group. Then the property becomes worthless. If the government decides that you cannot use your property it should have to purchase it. In other words, the government can purchase the property and then do nothing with it. There is a group called the nature conservatory that buys property and then lets it remain natural. They have bought most of Catalina Island. I have raised money for them. But Eminent domain can occur without the government actually physically taking title.

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.

Before the New Deal the government did recognize some economic rights. However, there is no right to Free Trade, but trade restrictions are always stupid policy. In a capitalist society there is rapid market changes and people get hurt financially. That is just the way it is. What if through free trade we import a new drug that cures cancer. But what about all the domestic workers that live off the cancer industry. What about those workers that build chemotherapy machines. They should get compenstated correct? And exactly how long do we keep paying them to do nothing. Our economy is so intricately tied to the international trading system that it would be crazy to try and figure out who lost some "utils" with each new foreign product that came onto our shores.

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.

One last thing. What makes those workers who just lost their jobs so special. What about other workers who never had a chance to get the highpaying manufacturing job in the first place. Or the worker that was never able to get a job where they got training. Just because a person obtains a job, that means they have a right to always have that same standard of living?

No. No one thinks that.

The fair thing to do is to educate your workforce so they have the flexibility to change careers. Instead of the government picking which workers get special educational benefits you should just try and make the educational system for everyone the best possible.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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.