Property Rights/Eminent Domain argument

[Met Income]

My friend said this:

"I do not believe that people that are part of a larger society have an intrinsic right to their property and should never be asked to leave by the government for appropriate financial consideration."

This relates specifically to the Kelo decision (taking private property to give to another private developer) How should I respond? Thanks!

[BenIsForRon]

Well, for starters, do you agree with him or not? This is a forum of independent thinkers.

I believe, say, if you own land in a floodplain, and you'd like to build a strip mall, then the government should disallow you from doing that, but instead compensate you with a certain amount of money. Then you could sell the property or do something more responsible with it.

As for government straight up taking your land, I can't think of a scenario where I'd be OK with that.

[Met Income]

My response:

I do not believe that people that are part of a larger society have an intrinsic right to their SPEECH and should never be asked to RESTRICT THEIR SPEECH by the government for appropriate national interest.

See how absurd that sounds? Rights are rights. You may not recognize them, but they still exist.

[Anti Federalist]

My friend said this:

"I do not believe that people that are part of a larger society have an intrinsic right to their property and should never be asked to leave by the government for appropriate financial consideration."

This relates specifically to the Kelo decision (taking private property to give to another private developer) How should I respond? Thanks!

I'm confused.

Seems he's contradicting himself.

[mediahasyou]

My friend said this:

"I do not believe that people that are part of a larger society have an intrinsic right to their property and should never be asked to leave by the government for appropriate financial consideration."

This relates specifically to the Kelo decision (taking private property to give to another private developer) How should I respond? Thanks!

If the government actually paid the appropriate amount of compensation for a person's property, then the whole process could be voluntary. However, the government never pays enough, so the gov just takes it by force.

If he does not believe in property rights: take his stuff, then see how he feels.

[Bryan]

I'm confused.

Seems he's contradicting himself.

+1.

Keep in mind that government is just a collection of people, so to support eminent domain is to say that one group of people can arbitrary take away from other.

There is no case where eminent domain is morally or ethically justified and should be used. IMO, the entire "taking clause" of the 5th was just a backdoor for the power hunger.

It's sad that people have been lead to think that the "taking clause" is always justified anytime the government wants to build a school, road, post office or whatever.

[Met Income]

I'm confused.

Seems he's contradicting himself.

I think he mis-typed. He supports eminent domain in Brooklyn for an NBA stadium for the Nets.