• Mount Pleasant declares four sq. miles "blighted" for eminent domain to Foxconn
    47 replies, posted
I posted this in another board and a conservative there pointed out that the Supreme Court decision that allows this to happen was a 5-4 decision, with the most liberal judges voting to allow it and the most conservative judges voting against allowing it. {{meta.fullTitle}} With today's events it's hard to believe there was a time where Conservatives would see this kind of thing happening as government overreach and be against it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZfxvH_oeKA
How does this sort of reasoning not apply to virtually any time eminent domain is abused, like in this thread? Yeah, sucks to be the couple dozen people in these few square miles of Mount Pleasant, but now the tens of thousands of people in the area benefit from wildly increased property values and 13,000 new jobs, right? The Interstates were ultimately a net benefit, but that's a very thin line you're walking in using the ends to justify the means.
Because the interstates are owned, operated, and maintained by the federal government for all citizens? It's clearly being abused in the OP because they're doing it for the benefit of some scummy private corporation. The interstate system was and is for the benefit of all American citizens.
The article in the OP says it will increase property values up to eighty times, in addition to up to 13,000 new jobs. That sounds like it's benefitting citizens in the area, not just Foxconn, so where are you drawing the line? The original, overriding purpose of the interstate system was to allow rapid military readiness in the event of war. Its economic benefit for long-distance transportation was a secondary effect. It was first and foremost a military project for which thousands of Americans were asked to give up their homes. Again, I don't disagree that the interstate system was good and catering to Foxconn is bad, but I don't think eminent domain is nearly as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. There are plenty of times when it has been used on behalf of a private interest but ultimately ended up being a massive benefit to the citizens living in the area, and there have been plenty of times when it was used in support of federal initiatives that give basically nothing back to the local community.
Those militias would intervene in support of this to "Stick it to the Libs!" That's their MO. They don't give a shit about the people or the constitution. It's all about Sticking It to the Libcucks no matter how much damage they cause.
Defending your citizens from the threat of invasion is still benefitting your citizens. The government cannot and should not rely on corporations to "pass-on" the benefit to its citizens. And please, show me where I implied the ethical ramifications of usage of eminent domain was clear-cut in all situations. Somebody implied usage of eminent domain was always theft, so I used an almost undeniably "good" usage of it as an example to counter that argument. Never did I mean to imply that there aren't gray areas.
Sorry, I interpreted your statement that 'it's still easy enough to draw the line' as saying that it's clear-cut whether eminent domain is justified or not. You're right, the interstates are a good example of a legitimate application of eminent domain.
Hence why the Oathkeepers have consistently offered firearm training too Black Lives Matter groups. Or completely ignoring the context of the Bundy Standoff, which was born from a movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellions in the 70's ~ 90's. Even the cases of eminent domain in the 80's and early 90's, where they stood arm to arm with trade unions and left-wing groups, in order to prevent property/land being stolen to build open-air coal mines. Please remember that the Militia Movement is by no means one sect of political thought. It's just an umbrella term to describe the whole deal with paramilitary groups in the US. Even the Black Panthers could of been considered part of the 1st Wave.
The Bundy Standoff doesn't need context, it was very clearly black and white, the Feds just didn't want another Waco-style disaster on their hands so they handled them with velvet gloves. Bundy had been illegally grazing his cattle on land that didn't belong to him for years and refused to pay the fees he rightfully owed the state, and he forced a confrontation and cast himself as the brave cowboy hero standing up to the big faceless government machine. Men pointed firearms at federal officers, a felony every time, and got away with it. And what'd that do? Nothing except show the idiots that getting away with criminal acts is just fine if you can make it difficult for the feds to proceed without creating tons of bad PR. It laid the groundwork for the Malheur Refuge standoff which saw a man provoke suicide by cop after two months of illegally occupying and damaging protected federal lands.
Eminent Domain is theft. Your property is taken without you being given a choice. Just because it can and has been used for good ideas in the past doesn't change that.
Oh sorry I didn't realize robbers often go through an extensive legal process and pay you back market value for what they steal from you. My bad. This kind of dumbass black and white thinking leads to shit like this https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2012/11/the-house-in-the-middle-of-the-street/n01_RTR3AQ12/main_900.jpg?1420574410 And I'd rather not have my freeways looking like this NOR would I want to be the people living in that house, thanks.
You say that as though either of those things have a bearing on the definition of theft. Like I said in the post you replied to, while eminent domain can be used for beneficial things, it's still the act removing a person's property without their consent.
You're delusional if you think for a moment that the families being uprooted will be fairly compensated such to rebuild what they had.
Except that house is nothing like what's going on here. This is a government fucking people over for a giant corporation. Fuck, it's not even an American corporation. The village government is literally fucking over American citizens for the a Chinese corporation.
Straight off of Google: theft THeft/ noun 1. the action or crime of stealing. steal stēl/ verb gerund or present participle: stealing 1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. Last I checked, eminent domain is the federal government's legal right. Don't be pedantic.
They gave themselves that right lmao. There's so many cases of governments giving themselves the right to do reprehensible shit that I don't even know where to start.
Yes, and the government can legally do many things that are otherwise considered illegal. There is no other instance where a person or group can legally force you to part with property that you rightfully own. In any other situation, it would be legally considered theft.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.