Unbelievable Eminent Domain Case in LA

The stupidity of some people never stops surprising me. But like you, BTA, I hope they get what they deserve.

 

What exactly is an animal shelter? And what purpose does it serve that it is so "urgent"? For sakes!

 

****ing idiots. It's not just misnamagement, those idiots should be prosecuted. Sounds like an Orwell scenario. Ambitious idiots in power have got their new toy and they're now breaking their legs playing with it.

Eminent domain, what the ****? I thought feudalism was over. Things like that are what the American Indepence War was against. What's next? All property is a ****ing feud held from the state?

Some lawyers shouldn't breed...

Something in me says it's not just about property. It's not just property they can take away like that. There's also freedom. Freedom of this, freedom of that. Freedom in general.

Am I having a dark prophetic moment inspired by alcohol or are "democratic" republics starting to look like good old monarchies, claiming to have a claim on all your property and your person?

Modern democracies were supposed to be nation-scale self-governments, the necessary way the community should rule itself. Now we're starting to have states that exist for their own sake.

Eminent domain. Bleh.

It's not like I live there but weird things happen here as well.

 

...And if they sell it someone in the same business, losing money in the process, it's freaking corruption if I've ever seen any.

 

Ok, thanks. This is outraging. I always thought modern democracies are a joke anyway. Yeah, you got the big right to "vote" who gets to power, but once they are there, they steal your money the same way; create stupid laws that deprive you from your individual and material freedom regardless; use their people-given political position - and money - to brainwash people and in their power struggles; spy on you and etc and etc. What a joke!

 

What's even worse is that eminent domain takeovers aren't limited to taking the property for the state. They can take from one private owner and give to another.

Democracy is a paradise for those who know how to juggle the vote and the whole system. You can vote, but you can't decide who you can vote between, so... Frankly, I'm losing more and more faith in democracy and I'm long past seeing democracy as a positive word, value in itself.

Certain things just don't change.

 

I think Democracy is nothing more than a stupid and empty word used by people who want to shroud their actions, stance, political position - etc - in a veil of legitimacy, but which has lost all it's meaning and concept. You call someone else's actions, ideological positions - or himself - "undemocratic", and that should put an end to any further debate. It is almost like being a pagan in the Middle Ages.
Like when that dumb**** Condoleezza Rice - who believes she can speak Russian, and knows Russian society and Culture as if it was her own; after all she has some kind of "major" in it. but doesn't know anymore of Russia than Bush himself - calls Russia "undemocratic". I am always curious what she means by that.
When you have nothing else to say, or can't debate further, you call someone undemocratic, hoping that should do. Hopefully, I see each day more and more people realising the fallacy which Democracy is.

 

...And compared to what other form of modern government?

 

There's a Michael Leunig (well known Australian cartoonist) quote that goes along the lines of: 'In Australia, we believe firmly in representative democracy - that is, anything that vaguely represents democracy'. (No idea if it actually goes much like that at all - my sister told it to me and no googling has picked it up).

Anyway - I just thought this might be relevant to the disillusioned here - just apply it to the rest of the world as well

*agrees with everyone above*

 

In itself...

Aikanaro,

That is a fun quote. Very clever.

 

@BTA
We had a very similar case here in Mesa, Arizona...but with a much different outcome. Here's the link if you want to have your faith restored.

 

That's just plain BS. I can understand the need for an "eminent domain" provision in legislation - there may be times when it needs to be enacted for a legitimate and pressing need - but there should always be an overwhelming burden to prove the absolute necessity of doing so. This just reeks, and I hope those responsible are held to account for it (both in elections and in court for gross abuse of power). And people wonder why I don't trust anyone with power if they can't be held accountable...

Like Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other ones". There's no denying that there are faults and flaws in democracy, but what would you prefer? More to the point, how would that be better, and how could you ensure that? No matter what "system" you adopt (I include anarchy in that; sorry Aik), there will always be people who will abuse it, try to bend it or subvert it, or otherwise pervert it to meet their personal ends or desires. I won't argue for a second that I'm appalled by the limitations on my so-called "free electoral choice", because in the end, I'm not choosing what I want, but what I would prefer from the extremely limited options I am being given.

I suppose the point of this mini-rant is that if you think something sucks, or that it needs changing, then get out there and do something about it. For the most part, the system stumbles along; I just don't think it serves the interests of "the people" (and to be frank, I wonder if it ever did).

If people can stomach his wordiness, Jürgen Habermas' theories and commentaries on participatory democratic systems are fairly interesting, IMO. Mind you, he (and I) would argue that you can never have proper democracy unless you have an active and politically interested population where anyone can voice an opinion and have it taken into consideration (though not necessarily accepted). That many people in power see their authority as some sort of personal divine right or entitlement, rather than as a tremendous responsibility to others, is a large part of the problem.

 

They could still use dire necessity rather than come up with eminent domain. It's not like the state has a better kind of property of your land. It's dire need that makes it acceptable for your lands to be seized by the community. Unless we're talking about frigging feudalism.

 

Eh, most states do not allow use of eminent domain for the benefit of another company (or private interest). California doesn't either; it seems that the case mentioned above was a matter of corrupt/incompetent politicians. Hopefully the courts will fulfill their role and slap them down.

So it's not that eminent domain is necessarily bad, is just that some politicians are crooked. And when talking about crooked politicians, I can think of way more outrageous cases

 

Without going into the anarchism thing - a bit of direct democracy certainly wouldn't go astray. That would be better than a pure representative one where you only get a say in issues every four years or so. Think Sweden for a modern example of this (I'm not sure how effective it is, however, at least in principle it sounds better than what other 'democratic' countries have).

I don't really think there's any need for eminent domain except in the direst of circumstances - and at the moment I can't even think of something that might be that important as to warrent it.

 

@Aikanaro: I wonder, do you have a problem with the idea of some superior property (eminent domain and all) of the state over all lands or not? I think expropriation out of dire necessity would be enough... That's what eminent domain looks like.

[ January 18, 2006, 12:01: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking: If you're asking whether the state should own everything and that, because it's all ultimately owned by the state anyway they're able to sieze it back through eminent domain - then no. Hell no. I don't even want a state - let alone have them own everything.

OTOH - if the state siezing a property is going to save the lives of numerous other people - it's really hard to object to that ... and no, by that I don't mean siezing land to build hospitals or whatever. And so you can see my trouble in thinking up any situation dire enough that could warrent the state throwing its power around in this. What circumstances are required so that siezing property will directly be saving lives?

If the state wants land - they should get it the way everyone else does.