• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDR's Greatist Blunder

FDR's Greatest Mistakes


  • Total voters
    49
Define "just compensation." I would argue that the only "just compensation" is that which the property owner voluntarily accepts.

That's not what the founding fathers meant by the term, so you're in a disagreement with them. I would define just compensation as the market value of the land plus cost of moving and relocating. That's what has always been meant by the term in this context. Sometimes the government needs to take land for public goods like roads, only anarchists like you disagree with this.
 
That's not what the founding fathers meant by the term, so you're in a disagreement with them. I would define just compensation as the market value of the land plus cost of moving and relocating. That's what has always been meant by the term in this context. Sometimes the government needs to take land for public goods like roads, only anarchists like you disagree with this.

And you know that this is what the founding fathers meant how?

And look at that, a nice personal attack thrown in calling me an anarchist. I guess you've never actually talked to a real anarchist to see how crazy they really are.
 
all apply even including the box for other..just can't think of any others right now.
 
And you know that this is what the founding fathers meant how?

And look at that, a nice personal attack thrown in calling me an anarchist. I guess you've never actually talked to a real anarchist to see how crazy they really are.

You are frighteningly close if you are not one, then. Anarchy in all but name. And I would challenge you to show me the writing of any founding father who contradicts me.
 
I think that his biggest blunder was not joining the war sooner. I think his economic policies were sound. overall
 
You are frighteningly close if you are not one, then. Anarchy in all but name. And I would challenge you to show me the writing of any founding father who contradicts me.

In other words, you're not going to provide any evidence.
 
In other words, you're not going to provide any evidence.

No eminent domain law has ever agreed with you on this. Would you like me to dredge up old laws from the 1700s to back this up? Give me a single law or anything that backs up your claim.

from an online legal dictionary... "the full value to be paid for property taken by the government for public purposes guaranteed by Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which states: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." If the amount offered by the governmental agency taking the property is not considered sufficient, the property owner may demand a trial to determine just compensation."

The property owner can take it to court to try to make sure they're actually getting what the land is worth, but they can't decide its worth whatever they want.
just compensation legal definition of just compensation. just compensation synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
Sometimes "needs" just means it's more convenient to inconvenience you.
 
No eminent domain law has ever agreed with you on this. Would you like me to dredge up old laws from the 1700s to back this up? Give me a single law or anything that backs up your claim.

from an online legal dictionary... "the full value to be paid for property taken by the government for public purposes guaranteed by Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which states: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." If the amount offered by the governmental agency taking the property is not considered sufficient, the property owner may demand a trial to determine just compensation."

The property owner can take it to court to try to make sure they're actually getting what the land is worth, but they can't decide its worth whatever they want.
just compensation legal definition of just compensation. just compensation synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

This doesn't prove anything. You have yet to provide a definition of "just" compensation. The definition that you are trying to use right completely ignores any truth to the subjective theory of value.
 
This doesn't prove anything. You have yet to provide a definition of "just" compensation. The definition that you are trying to use right completely ignores any truth to the subjective theory of value.

Because it's the legal definition, and that's what matters in this case, as we are discussing a legal document. This is what the phrase has always meant in US law, this is what the phrase meant to the people who wrote those laws. You can have your little pet theories, but they don't mean jack to anyone else.
 
Because it's the legal definition, and that's what matters in this case, as we are discussing a legal document. This is what the phrase has always meant in US law, this is what the phrase meant to the people who wrote those laws. You can have your little pet theories, but they don't mean jack to anyone else.

They would mean jack to the people whose property is seized via eminent domain because they lose out big time on the deal unless they would have accepted that money voluntarily. I mean, if market value was just compensation, then why do we have so many examples of people getting more than market value for their property when the government takes it?
 
They would mean jack to the people whose property is seized via eminent domain because they lose out big time on the deal unless they would have accepted that money voluntarily. I mean, if market value was just compensation, then why do we have so many examples of people getting more than market value for their property when the government takes it?

Wait... what's your point here... last I saw you were arguing that it's only just compensation if they voluntarily accept the price... now you're blathering on about something else entirely.
 
There's just one problem with the idea though. The government pays you the market rate for that home. Here's the catch, if that money was worth what you value the house minus the labor of moving, you would sell yourself. As such, the property owner gets trampled upon by the government because the property owner NECESSARILY takes a loss. There is no way around this: the government always undercompensates the property owner.


You wouldn't be able to sell it yourself if you couldn't find a buyer. With building going on around the property, you're pretty much guaranteed that you won't.


They would mean jack to the people whose property is seized via eminent domain because they lose out big time on the deal unless they would have accepted that money voluntarily. I mean, if market value was just compensation, then why do we have so many examples of people getting more than market value for their property when the government takes it?

No one is entitled to more than fair market value. Considering most cases in which ED is evoked doesn't involve people who just bought their homes yesterday, the current FMV is generally higher than what they paid for it (present market excluded). So the gov't provides FMV, the buyer and the deal closes. You can't get much fairer than that.
 
You wouldn't be able to sell it yourself if you couldn't find a buyer. With building going on around the property, you're pretty much guaranteed that you won't.

If the person can't sell it for the value that they want then they won't sell it. There's no other way around that. The amount that they sell the house for is necessarily equal to or above the value of the home plus the cost of moving.

No one is entitled to more than fair market value. Considering most cases in which ED is evoked doesn't involve people who just bought their homes yesterday, the current FMV is generally higher than what they paid for it (present market excluded). So the gov't provides FMV, the buyer and the deal closes. You can't get much fairer than that.

So what if it's more than they paid for it? If I live in a great neighborhood with neighbors I love and a community that I'm a part of, I don't want to move. The home may have a market value of a certain amount, but it's worth way more to me than that. If a businessman came to my home offering market value there's no way I would take it because the home is worth more to me than market value. This part is for you makeout hobo. Just because that businessman offers me market value does not mean I want to take the deal. At a certain point though, the money would be worth losing the community and everything else. However, the market value does not represent my subjective valuation of the home. It is worth much more to me than market value. If, however, market value was worth more than how I value the home and the cost of moving, I would move right away. However, and this is the heart of the issue, if you have to force me to leave, it is because what you are compensating me with is less than the worth that I associate with the home. I lose out big time if you force me to move. And that's the point. Market value cannot be the definition of just compensation because it ignores the subjective value that property owners place on their homes.
 
If the person can't sell it for the value that they want then they won't sell it. There's no other way around that. The amount that they sell the house for is necessarily equal to or above the value of the home plus the cost of moving.



So what if it's more than they paid for it? If I live in a great neighborhood with neighbors I love and a community that I'm a part of, I don't want to move. The home may have a market value of a certain amount, but it's worth way more to me than that. If a businessman came to my home offering market value there's no way I would take it because the home is worth more to me than market value. This part is for you makeout hobo. Just because that businessman offers me market value does not mean I want to take the deal. At a certain point though, the money would be worth losing the community and everything else. However, the market value does not represent my subjective valuation of the home. It is worth much more to me than market value. If, however, market value was worth more than how I value the home and the cost of moving, I would move right away. However, and this is the heart of the issue, if you have to force me to leave, it is because what you are compensating me with is less than the worth that I associate with the home. I lose out big time if you force me to move. And that's the point. Market value cannot be the definition of just compensation because it ignores the subjective value that property owners place on their homes.

But it is the definition given by the peple who wrote the 5th amendment, as well as all legal definitions I know of. You can argue that subjective value should be taken into consideration, but all established law disagrees with you. Eminent domain is there as a way for the state to take what it needs for its own projects and purposes. If market value was always "whatever the owners want to get for it", then there is no such thing as eminent domain, there is just the state buying property.
 
But it is the definition given by the peple who wrote the 5th amendment, as well as all legal definitions I know of. You can argue that subjective value should be taken into consideration, but all established law disagrees with you. Eminent domain is there as a way for the state to take what it needs for its own projects and purposes. If market value was always "whatever the owners want to get for it", then there is no such thing as eminent domain, there is just the state buying property.

I would argue that there should be no such thing as eminent domain in the form that we know it today. But since just compensation is so vaguely defined, it should raise this legal question that I have been talking about.
 
I would argue that there should be no such thing as eminent domain in the form that we know it today. But since just compensation is so vaguely defined, it should raise this legal question that I have been talking about.

But what you are talking about isn't eminent domain, it's simply the government buying something.
 
And it's the only way to ensure just compensation.

Sometimes the government needs property you have. If you won't sell them the property, they have the right to take it by force in certain instances (such as roads). This is a neccessary function of government. Since you'd want the highest price you could get for it, the goverment would want it for free, the best way to decide is to sell it at what its market price would be. Emotional considerations shouldn't factor in.
 
Sometimes the government needs property you have. If you won't sell them the property, they have the right to take it by force in certain instances (such as roads). This is a neccessary function of government. Since you'd want the highest price you could get for it, the goverment would want it for free, the best way to decide is to sell it at what its market price would be. Emotional considerations shouldn't factor in.

Why does this only hold true for government then? Say I want to expand my backyard. Well the easiest way to do that would be to buy my neighbor's property. He refuses to sell it, so instead I take it from him and give him the market value as determined by a 3rd party. Is this fair?
 
Why does this only hold true for government then? Say I want to expand my backyard. Well the easiest way to do that would be to buy my neighbor's property. He refuses to sell it, so instead I take it from him and give him the market value as determined by a 3rd party. Is this fair?

The difference is that it is assumed the government is taking it for a valid public reason, like expanding a road or putting up a levee, something that serves the public interest. You wanting to put in a bbq pit doesn't count.
 
The difference is that it is assumed the government is taking it for a valid public reason, like expanding a road or putting up a levee, something that serves the public interest. You wanting to put in a bbq pit doesn't count.

But how do you determine whether the benefit of said public interest project outweighs the personal loss to the property owner whose property you take?

What if I want to build a park in my backyard, expanding on my previous example. Am I justified then since the park would benefit the community?
 
But how do you determine whether the benefit of said public interest project outweighs the personal loss to the property owner whose property you take?
If you disagree, you take it to court. Why do you ask questions you should already know the answer to? Take a civics class or something.

What if I want to build a park in my backyard, expanding on my previous example. Am I justified then since the park would benefit the community?

ED is one of those powers we leave in the government's hands because it should only be exercized by the collective will of the people, like the court systems
 
Back
Top Bottom