RE: [at-l] Saddleback

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

Hey!

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  *

==============================================================================