How many here believe that the individual is more important than society?

[Toots]

That is the question that is at issue with the Supreme Court ruling. Is the well being of the community of more importance than the well being of the individual? It is a basic Liberal tenet that the community needs out weigh the needs of the individual. Is that not your belief and if not why not? In this particular case I agree it would seem that individual property rights are sold out to Corporate interests but in reality that is not the case. In almost every single instance of eminent domain seizures some large business has profited. Whether it was the Contracter that built the new government buildings or the contracter that profited from building the new highway or sewage system. Government does not do the building, it is contracted out. Why is that profit different from the profit of a Mall being established to provide jobs and tax revenues? If the community as a whole profits is that not a good thing. Remember nothing is taken without payment. People receive fair payment for their property so it isn't stolen. You have been living in a dream world if you have truly believed you own anything in this country. The government can and does take what they want when they want it. Always has and always will. It is the American way that we are all so proud of. Just ask Native Americans about that.

[tk2kewl]

1. I understand the argument

but I DO believe that the decision went to far in that it codifies much broader powers of eminent domain than are appropriate. The public benefit in this case is a prediction and, I do not believe, entirely tangible. Additionally, the private for-profit nature of the new development is disturbing.

[Lerkfish]

3. the real problem, IMHO

is that it gives private corporations the same powers as govt to unilaterally seize property.

Two very disturbing things about that:

1. we can barely hold govt. accountable for their actions, by threatening to not elect them. With private corporations, we have no control over them whatsoever. Its a carte blanche to do as they please.

2. this is beyond a slippery slope, this already rolling down the hill. After this, what?
corporations allowed to buy and sell employees like slaves?

[johnaries]

2. Society and Individuals are interdependent. Each depends on the other.

Neither is more important than the other because neither can survive without the other. Even hermits come to town at least once a year to stock up on supplies.

What is difficult is finding and maintaining the proper balance between them. Which is what the Great Experiment of America is all about.

[Toots]

5. Then hell with national health care or police for that matter.

If individual rights have the same importance as society then why pay any taxes or have public education?

[johnaries]

17. Because that's part of the interdependence.

Individuals have a responsibility to Society just has Society has a responsibility to Individuals.

[Walt Starr]

4. How many people believe corporations are more important than individuals?

That's what this rulling is REALLY about.

[tk2kewl]

7. I don't actually think that this is what the ruling is about

I do, however, worry that the ruling will is dangerous in the way you suggest. I wish it had gone differently.

[Walt Starr]

23. I disagree

but you are free to have your opinion.

[brainshrub]

6. The issue isn't society vs individual: It's cooperations vs individual.

In my experience, the issue usually isn't society vs. individual, since most reasonable citizens will usually make sacrifices for the good of society. (Especially they are reenumerated and the property will be used for the public good, not line the profits of shareholders.)

Usually the issue falls between the rights of a corporation vs the rights of the individual.

If a corporation buys up city-hall and forces you off your land: That's an issue of corporate rights trumping your own, not social responsibility usurping private property.

[uppityperson]

18. Thank you brainshrub for your answer, this is it. Uniter vs Divider too.

This ruling is not about the individual vs society, it is about the individual vs corporations. If a community truly needs more businesses to survive, it will get them or it will close. Forcing someone off their land, out of their home, for a business to take over is very much against what I believe and is not individual vs society.

Incividual vs society: these need to balanced also. There need to be rules, and laws, and regulations because there are individuals who will damage society to the point they need to be restrained. But this is not what this ruling is about.

I hear people from all over the political spectrum yelling about this ruling. Mr.bush again proves he's a uniter, not a divider.

[Devlzown]

8. I think that it's often difficult to see

whether the community is really going to benefit from seizure of property. Is it always progress when old homes or neighborhoods are demolished and a new mall is built? What if a minority community with minority-owned businesses is destroyed so a riverwalk can be built with Starbuck's and the Gap in its place? The common good is not often easily determined.

[dcfirefighter]

9. I beleive that the individual is more important

and furthermore I beleive that the collective self-interest of individuals will lead to a better society.

I believe absolute power corrupts: any government that can dictate the well-being of individuals will eventually be corrupted to enhance the well-being of a priveleged few.

I think the key to making self-interest work for society is entangled with the concept of private property. I believe in Locke's theories on land, and further believe that the 'free market' doesn't work for Real-Estate. Notably, the value of land under buildings is created by nature, and the local community, and not by the efforts of the landowner - hence said landowner has no rights to cash in on that value. Instead, he should pay rent for the land (and other natural resources) he takes. This rent should be redistributed amongst the members of the community (city, county, state, nation, even world). Such a distribution may take the form of government services.

Were the nature of taxation this way, the need for eminent domain would be lessened, if only for the decrease in (or stagnation of) land real-estate prices.

[getmeouttahere]

12. I don't agree in all cases....

on the collective self-interest of individuals will lead to a better society. If that were true in all cases, we wouldn't have such horrible traffic in our cities. It is always in the self-interest of the individual to drive as fast and cut off as many people as possible to get to their destination as efficiently as possible. Of course, that is one of the biggest causes of gridlock. Which is why I am glad you made your point about the free market not working for real estate. In some cases, the government is better suited for delivering services efficiently, Social Security being one of the best examples. For a better understanding of where I get my viewpoints on this subject, see "The Efficient Society - Why Canada is As Close to Utopia As It Gets" by Joseph Heath

[Salviati]

10. I believe that there needs to be a balance...

To claim that either one always takes precedence over the other is an overly simplistic view of the situation. I think that in situations like this, there needs to be some damn good compelling evidence that the development is going to do wonders for the community, and "providing jobs" and "increasing the tax base" are not enough, because as soon as the development gets built, they're going to be looking for loopholes to get out of paying taxes, and will certainly be laying people off as soon as it's in the interest of their bottom line.

Don't try to hang this ruling like a dead-weight around the neck of liberal thought. Of course private individuals will profit during the development of any property, the big issue is who is going to profit once the development is done. If the only party directly profiting is a private individual or corp. then the government has no business using eminent domain.

[Beaver Tail]

13. Individuals rights IS protection of society rights as a whole (IMHO)

By not protecting the individual’s rights we hurt society as a whole as the loss of an individuals protection MEANS the loss of everyone’s protection.

[noamnety]

11. The "common good" includes the "common man"

If you are screwing over the poor and working classes for the good of society, it begs the question: Which society benefits?

[MadHound]

14. Sorry, but your reasoning doesn't fly for a number of reasons

First off, yes, a contractor benefits economically when a highway or public building is put up on land seized via ED. However, it is a one time only benefit, ie, once the sewer job is done, that businesses' profits halt right there. Also, the contract is bidded out openly to whichever business can put in the lowest bid. It isn't given over to the business which lines the coffers of the Good Ol' Boy network. But when a property is doled out to a corporation, they continue to rake in the profits for years and decades.

Secondly, while a corporation will create jobs with the property it seized under ED, there are many corporations like WalMart and Home Depot whose presence actually result in a net loss of jobs in the community.

Third, many corporations demand tax breaks from a city in order to move in, thus, any tax benefits are thrown out the window.

Fourth, fair market compensation is not the same as the price the property owner would get on the free market. In fact ED compensations average between ten and twenty percent lower than what the owner would get on the free market.

Fifth, one of the founding principles of this country was the prevention of arbitrary property seizures by the government. Yes, the need to serve the public good was recognized, but the basis of America, one of the founding principles was the protection of property rights. We fought a war over this, and sadly, it looks like we're going to have to fight another one.

Sixth, many of these corporation are actually a net drain on the community. Not only does the community have to pay for increased services, but the community also suffers from the waste and pollution caused by the corporation.

Sorry friend, but this was a bad ruling and bad policy.

[brainshrub]

16. Great post.

[converted_democrat]

21. That was a very good post!!! Keep em' coming!! n/t

[ellenfl]

27. thank you. that's how i see it too. our local commissions have

developers on them which i see as a conflict. if you have a government that is made up of fair-minded people that you trust, i guess you will have no problems.

as for tax cuts, jeb offered scripps a great deal which involves the taxpayer paying the salaries of the scientists for the first 7 years, among other handouts. in addition, the high salary jobs will not be going to the local people but to imports. this project will cost a lot more than it will profit us, at least in the short term, imo.

ellen fl

[MadHound]

32. I hear you, but wait, I can go you one better, or worse, as the case maybe

Not only do we have developers and real estate agents on the city council, but we also have a couple of WalMart spawn who live in, and control this city. Can you say a big fat WalMart brand on the ass of Columbia Mo? I can!

And thanks for all the kind words. This ruling has just left me seething. I'm writing my Congression reps over the weekend, urging them to propose a Constituttional Amendment to override this POS ruling. I would suggest everybody does this.

[stray cat]

15. Individual is more important then corporate greed

The good of society is seldom a key determinant. It is corporate profit and ultimately corporate political donations.

[oscar111]

19. Basic Liberal tenet is "less suffering", not society over all

sometimes less suffering would favor indiv, sometimes society.

just off the top of my head. Need to think about it.

[sweetheart]

20. The individual is more important, but it has little to do with this case

The individual is the core basis of society, and if they wanted to
restore that, they would overturn corporate personhood, overturn
equal protection for corporations and end the drugs war. All 3 of
these actions are based on a cynical judicial system that has elevated
institutional power over the choice and rights of an individual.

Eminent Domain should be used in some areas where intellectual property
should be taken for the common good. This would be in some drugs
for treating common illnesses, some software patents for things that
should be publically owned, and other uses. THe fact that the system
is twisted against the individual is a result of corporate
personhood.

[Sushi-Lover]

22. Its not all one or the other.

Community needs do not always outweight the needs of the individual (nor vice versa). I don't think you really believe that the needs of the community always outweigh those of the individual. Would you support a system where you were assigned a career and location based on what would be best for everyone on average? I doubt you would, but thats a logical extension of the concept that the needs of the community outweigh the needs of the individual. In my opinion, we protect the basic rights of the individual first and then we worry about whats best for the community under that restraint (as others have said balancing the needs of the individual and the needs of the community).

[Ksec]

24. Im for greater good

[not systems]

28. What about when you are sliced up like a turkey and served to the rich?

I guess they will enjoy their snack.

[Coexist]

25. what was that line from Star Trek?

the one that Nimoy kept saying when Kirk wanted to save one person - but risk they lives of the entire crew to do it.

I always loved that.

[ComerPerro]

26. Society. The reason I say that is because most "individualists" I know

are pathetic, Ayn Rand worshipping, corporate apologists who really only value individualism when it justifies them being an asshole or treating other people like crap.

[getmeouttahere]

29. I can certainly relate to those feelings....

as those people are running roughshod on this country

[Fire Walk With Me]

30. If the community is based upon insanity, then the individual is important

Laws placing corporate rights above personal rights are insane.

[Jose Diablo]

31. This is one of those questions that if asked in a general way

without specifying the context of the question can be answered either way.

To be sure, society can and does have 'rights' to a persons property, provided of course 'due process and compensation' is followed. The big question is how to apply 'due process' and what is 'compensation'.

I don't think society's desire to maximize property tax receipts would qualify as a justifiable reason to transfer ownership of property to another. Actually, I think if that were to happen, the other local property owners would speak-out vigorously to protect someone who's property had been taken in this way and the local county commissioners would be ousted. How did this get to the Supreme Court anyway?

Traditionally, eminent domain was only used for 'public projects'. Public meaning something the government was undertaking, like a road, or a school. 'Public good' was not interpreted to mean a new shopping center owned by a private company was for the 'public good'.

I do know that sometimes, even in the past, private property was given to another private owner. Railroads for example were given vast swaths of land, I think it was 40 miles across on either side of the railroad "right of way". This was done to draw in the capital needed to buy the steel rails, wood cross-ties, rock and pay the workers to build the rail system. The selling of parcels of land on either side of the rail right of way provided the capital to build the rail line.

But the seizing of private property by and large wasn't done for just any profitable motive. Having rail service in the country was deemed a greater good than private ownership of property in the way of the rail line.

But to just say, is society or the individual more important is too general a question if the context is ignored. Obviously, the answer could be either or both depending on the specific circumstances of the issue in question, thats why 'due process' is added to eminent domain questions. Theoretically, 'due process' would settle the questions on specific examples.

[Indy Lurker]

33. Individuals

Self-interest is the basis for society. In theory, we are better off in society than living outside of it, and that is in our self-interest.

To live in society, we give up SOME personal freedoms, such as hitting your neighbor with a stick when you feel like it(complying with laws) and some money (taxes), and in exchange, we get safety and security, (others who live within the bounds of society can't hit you with a stick.) This is enforced by a few special people we do give sticks to (Police)

To further protect individules, the majority is limited it how it can treat the minority. The protection of the minority is key, or 51% of the population could literally enslave the other 49%.

The problem is rulings like this shift the balance of power/freedom too far to one side. This ruling gives the majority the power to boot a minority out of town.

It's one thing to be displaced for a purpose that is available to everyone, and is truly "needed" like a water processing plant. For the town to function, the plant has to go somewhere, the town needs clean water. It's quite another matter to transfer it to another individual, or organization, with only the "projection" of a benefit for the town.

Have there ever been civil suits over "just compensation"?

If you are forced off your land for $50,000 and then your land is re-sold 3 years later for $5,000,000 wouldn't it be fairly easy to show the compensation wasn't just?

What will stop communities from wiping out undesirable minority (in the voting sense, not necessairly the race or ethnic sense)portions of town?

If you wipe out all of the low income areas in a town, and put up expensive homes, you will increase the tax base, AND eliminate social expenditures.

Won't this start to happen? or am I missing something?