[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [at-l] Saddleback


Who was calling this guy addled earlier? Sounds like he knows way too much
about the political process to me...

Come clean David, what did you say you did for a living? <VBG>

Lee I Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-at-l@backcountry.net [mailto:owner-at-l@backcountry.net]On
> Behalf Of David F. Addleton
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 3:44 PM
> To: Nestor L. Reyes; Walt Daniels
> Cc: AT Mailing List; Bucky
> Subject: Re: [at-l] Saddleback
> > > In the Saddleback case the landowner is willing to sell
> but at a price
> way
> > > above the appraisal. This seems to fit the prostitute
> model above very
> well.
> >
> > Does it mean, then, that WF et al are defending the virtue of a
> > prostitute? If so, purism, in this case, creates an
> unintended pimp who
> > bids up the price of social/economic intercourse.
> The only limits to the power of eminent domain are public
> purpose and fair
> price, both of which are broad in their legal implications.  These two
> "broads" aren't prostitutes although US citizens are more willing than
> others to prostitute their sacred constitution to suit their
> own political
> and economic ends. On the other hand, many folks elsewhere in
> the world do
> not enjoy even those two protections. Public purpose can mean
> just about
> anything (eg., eminent domain exercised against a sports
> franchise to keep
> it in the city) and fair price depends on "what a willing
> buyer would pay
> to a willing seller at a particular time and place."
> Property appraises
> all over the board and one can ask for and get appraisals at
> either the
> "high end" or the "low end" of "reasonable" -- whatever that
> means. Without
> eminent domain we'd not enjoy the marvelous interstate road
> system. For
> better or worse, we use the courts to pour concrete meaning into these
> abstractions when the interested parties cannot themselves
> reach settlement
> on the meaning. In balancing competing economic and social
> interests, no
> one can predict what a court or compromising parties will
> accomplish. Often
> disputes, whether settled or decided by a judge, beget unintended
> consequences, just as do laws and regs the legislature and executive
> agencies create. But we call the process of competing over
> opinions and
> values and interests before a judge "the rule of law" or in elections,
> "democracy" and the competition we call a "free market" or "freedom of
> expression" or "of press."
> Since WF "owns" his domain in cyberspace he may do with it
> what he likes,
> up to and including, silencing anyone with whom he disagrees
> by denying
> them access to his information or transmitting their speech,
> just as you
> can keep disagreeable people off your property. The
> constitution applies to
> the government, not to private persons (with one important exception
> dealing with slavery); it protects us from the government,
> but not from our
> fellow citizens.
> The caricature of an opponent, adversary, or whatever, has a
> time honored
> place in the competitive public marketplace of ideas, but
> does not really
> address the ideas in competition, and for that reason when recognized
> appears under the rubric of the ad hominum fallacies. While
> I'm no fan of
> WF,  and while the analogy may have considerable value for
> enjoyable high
> or low comedy, I'm certain someone can come up with a more convincing
> argument regarding eminent domain in the context of
> Saddleback and I'm not
> certain the AT-L is the place for a debate on whether or not
> we need more
> limits to the power of eminent domain.
> * From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |
> http://www.backcountry.net  *

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *