• 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!

Private Land Owners

code1211 said:
He seems to at least understand how a wall works...

There are not that many moving parts. Should not really be a brain teaser. Has the lefties stumped, though.
Click to expand...

I might support a wall around Trumpists as long as it includes a ceiling and is internet free. They, of course, would need to pay for it, though.
 
code1211 said:
Sounds like this wall is a pretty smart wall. Will it only keep out the folks that you cite? Most walls I encounter are pretty stupid. They are also pretty non-discriminatory.

Is this the first and only time that eminent domain has ever been employed?

Is this the only wall that was ever built to restrict entry into property to only those entitled to enter?

In my experience, eminent domain has been used before, walls have been built before and walls are usually built to accomplish EXACTLY this same purpose.

Were walls incorporated into the design of your home? Do they help to restrict access to those authorized to enter or is your home more like a public crosswalk at Mardi Gras?
Click to expand...

Some walls are built to keep people in.
 
Helix said:
When I was a kid, I learned that racist idiots and nazis sucked. I checked recently, and I found that this is still the case. That's why I would discourage others from associating with the morons.
Click to expand...

Typical Godwins Law nonsense from the collective temper tantrum.
 
Helix said:
I might support a wall around Trumpists as long as it includes a ceiling and is internet free. They, of course, would need to pay for it, though.
Click to expand...

Good for you. No one cares though. Most people probably only care to talk about the topic. Not circle jerk over your Trump Derangement.
 
Aberration said:
Good for you. No one cares though. Most people probably only care to talk about the topic. Not circle jerk over your Trump Derangement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your opinion.
 
code1211 said:
The highlighted part is the basis of the entire discussion.

Determining who has what degree of the control of private property is the entire question.

For instance, assume that I own an AR-15 and I do not want to sell it to the government.

Will I be required to sell it at a price dictated by the buyer or will the buyer be compelled to pay the price that will make me want to sell?

For this consideration, assume that I purchased the thing legally and have been, in every way imaginable, a law abiding, contributing member of the society.

Will I be forced to forfeit my property to the state?
Click to expand...

Ummmm...well, for starters, stick to land usage on this one because, that is what eminent domain is about: government taking of land for public use, not firearms.Your example leaves much to be desired for.

However, there is an actual answer to the question on value of land. First, understand this: the government can just take your land at any time. They can kick you off of it if they need to by passing an Act, which would bypass the courts. It is VERY rare that people win against the government in eminent domain cases in terms of keeping the government from taking your land. The Constitution is pretty specific on this one.

The REAL fight is over the value of the land. That is when the people have a far better chance of winning over the government. Normally, what happens is that the government sends out a real estate appraiser who will give a value to the land and any structures on it. The former owner will look at the value and decide to take or not. Usually not, because the government likes to under-value the property. So, the former owner has to hire a real estate appraiser to determine a value as well. That is normally higher than what the government will offer. Depending on dollar amount and need of the land by the government, the government sometimes will just cave if the dollar value is still low enough. Otherwise, it goes to court, which orders an arbiter to handle it and the lawyers haggle it...usually to the benefit of the former owner.

Courts usually rely on the proper value appraisal. Its on the government to prove why their number is lower than the actual value as dictated by the market. Which is possible, especially if the property in question is not well-kept (like the structures are condemned, the ground water is polluted, etc.). There is also the cost benefit to the land...for example, if the land is farmland...not only does the government have to pay you the value of the land, but the lawyers haggle out how many lost seasons to pay you out for. But again, that is reliant on the market....not what you or the government WANTS it to be.

Hope that answers your question. Just FYI, father is a retired real estate appraiser and a long time ago, I used to environmental appraisals (not a lot of money in that niche BTW).
 
VySky said:
Get off my property!

What are the thoughts today from Liberal Progressives about those who own large parcels of land? Does the owner have the right to the land he purchased or does it belong to the collective?

-VySky
Click to expand...

Ask yourself that question when Rump starts grabbing private land along the border for his big beautiful wall.
 
Helix said:
I might support a wall around Trumpists as long as it includes a ceiling and is internet free. They, of course, would need to pay for it, though.
Click to expand...

The floor for the confinement seems to be omitted from your description.

What if we tunnel out of the prisons you propose to add additional points of view and new ideas to the marketplace for consideration.

Additional ideas creating new approaches and novel solutions.

Oh! the horror!
 
code1211 said:
The floor for the confinement seems to be omitted from your description.

What if we tunnel out of the prisons you propose to add additional points of view and new ideas to the marketplace for consideration.

Additional ideas creating new approaches and novel solutions.

Oh! the horror!
Click to expand...

i'm fine with a floor for the wall around Trumpists. i'm glad that we are finally finding points of agreement.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Some walls are built to keep people in.
Click to expand...

Walls are pretty much like any other tool. The wall doesn't think and doesn't feel. It just is.

Like expanded foam cups. They do what they do. Sometimes they keep hot stuff hot and sometimes they keep cold stuff cold.

Sometimes walls keep undesirables in. Sometimes they keep undesirables out.

In all cases, tools help the user to achieve the goal or prevent the feared. In the case of the wall or the expanded foam, the process of change is slowed, not stopped.

Constantinople's walls were very effective for centuries until artillery changed the world. Both their effectiveness and the eventual obsolescence are a credit to the creativity of the problem solvers.

As long as people are not angels, people will need and use walls that fit their needs. Where I sit right now happens to be surrounded by walls. Most rooms are.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Ummmm...well, for starters, stick to land usage on this one because, that is what eminent domain is about: government taking of land for public use, not firearms.Your example leaves much to be desired for.

However, there is an actual answer to the question on value of land. First, understand this: the government can just take your land at any time. They can kick you off of it if they need to by passing an Act, which would bypass the courts. It is VERY rare that people win against the government in eminent domain cases in terms of keeping the government from taking your land. The Constitution is pretty specific on this one.

The REAL fight is over the value of the land. That is when the people have a far better chance of winning over the government. Normally, what happens is that the government sends out a real estate appraiser who will give a value to the land and any structures on it. The former owner will look at the value and decide to take or not. Usually not, because the government likes to under-value the property. So, the former owner has to hire a real estate appraiser to determine a value as well. That is normally higher than what the government will offer. Depending on dollar amount and need of the land by the government, the government sometimes will just cave if the dollar value is still low enough. Otherwise, it goes to court, which orders an arbiter to handle it and the lawyers haggle it...usually to the benefit of the former owner.

Courts usually rely on the proper value appraisal. Its on the government to prove why their number is lower than the actual value as dictated by the market. Which is possible, especially if the property in question is not well-kept (like the structures are condemned, the ground water is polluted, etc.). There is also the cost benefit to the land...for example, if the land is farmland...not only does the government have to pay you the value of the land, but the lawyers haggle out how many lost seasons to pay you out for. But again, that is reliant on the market....not what you or the government WANTS it to be.

Hope that answers your question. Just FYI, father is a retired real estate appraiser and a long time ago, I used to environmental appraisals (not a lot of money in that niche BTW).
Click to expand...

While Eminent Domain may apply to real estate only, I am not sure this is the case, the ability of the state to take property from a private individual by caprice is the issue that concerns me.

Therefore, whether it's real estate, my guns or my car or my dog or my shoes, I disagree with the general principle that the State can confiscate the property that I own.

If it is legal for me to own it in the first place, then it should be legal for me to keep it in every case assuming no failure on my part to be a responsible owner.

What part of the Constitution gives this right of confiscation of private property to the state? The Bill of Rights addresses many issues that deal with personal rights and property rights.
 
Helix said:
i'm fine with a floor for the wall around Trumpists. i'm glad that we are finally finding points of agreement.
Click to expand...

Only because I was able to tunnel out of your desired thought prison.

When anyone builds a prison they should do so knowing that it might one day house both themselves and their children.

Thoughts are like water. Sometimes they drip and sometimes they flood. They seem to turn up at unexpected times in unexpected places.

Men plan. God laughs.
 
code1211 said:
Only because I was able to tunnel out of your desired thought prison.

When anyone builds a prison they should do so knowing that it might one day house both themselves and their children.

Thoughts are like water. Sometimes they drip and sometimes they flood. They seem to turn up at unexpected times in unexpected places.

Men plan. God laughs.
Click to expand...

The floor should be reinforced concrete. Then we can prevent escapees from finding wifi.
 
code1211 said:
Walls are pretty much like any other tool. The wall doesn't think and doesn't feel. It just is.
Click to expand...

Mankind is a territorial animal. It creates arbitrary borders when natural borders don't suffice to assure and mark its territorial claims. The size of the territory is irrelevant. In the end, man is gone, the land remains, for better or worse after man's custodianship. Walls crumble, fences fall after time passes. "Ownership" is an abstract, a creation by the mind, living in abstract constructs created by man, protected by abstract laws, and not so abstract swords. Nothing made by man is eternal, including abstract concepts. Time cures and conquers.

Even when walls serve other needs of man, shelter from the elements, hiding other wealth or behavior from others, walls remain temporary. They may remain standing for a lifetime, or many generations, and may only become minor markings in the soil after time passes, but they are temporary as are the values we attach to them.

We murder, go to war, to protect and acquire more "ownership" of land, whatever the reasons for wanting that "ownership," but we all pass and the land remains. Perhaps we should be asking if land owns us? Dictating our behavior, our temporary place in this world? Kind of like contemplating the lint in my navel.
 
VySky said:
Get off my property!

What are the thoughts today from Liberal Progressives about those who own large parcels of land? Does the owner have the right to the land he purchased or does it belong to the collective?

-VySky
Click to expand...

As a Georgist, I strongly believe our propertarian system is a major contributor to poverty. However, I am not against private possession of land, nor possession of large quantities of land. But, that possession should be paid for through a land value tax. The community should receive restitution for the land it is denied access to. It is the fairest way to alleviate the inequality landlordism creates.
 
Moot said:
I think all private land owners, large and small, should be subject to zoning and property taxes, but they should also have a say and/or a vote in both issues.
Click to expand...

Those property taxes should be reformed. Unfortunately, a landlord can hold a parcel of land out of use for years, pay little and taxes, and just wait until the value is increased by his productive neighbors. This results in far more sprawl and vacant properties than is necessary.
 
Outlook said:
Comrade, the land belongs to the people.
Click to expand...

That is certainly the belief of Alaskans, at least when it comes to their oil.
 
VySky said:
Glad to see the left hasn't completely lost its mind relative to wealth redistribution. With all this talk from the Dems promoting socialism, my question is on point.

Socialist believe in common property ownership

-VySky
Click to expand...

Land/resources ought to be treated differently compared to other forms of property. Untax labor and most products, tax land/resource privatization a percentage of market value.
 
yankintx said:
Ask yourself that question when Rump starts grabbing private land along the border for his big beautiful wall.
Click to expand...

Try to keep up. I have addressed that already in this thread. Go check it out :)

-VySky
 
Geoist said:
Land/resources ought to be treated differently compared to other forms of property. Untax labor and most products, tax land/resource privatization a percentage of market value.
Click to expand...

There you have it. Thanks

-VySky
 
VySky said:
There you have it. Thanks

-VySky
Click to expand...

These are my own personal views, as a Georgist. There are people on both the right and left who agree with Georgist principles. There are also far more people on the right and left who disagree with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom