True, but that's not actually the principle on which eminent domain as an inherent function of sovereignty is built. It's not that all property ultimately belongs to the government, it's that the government has ultimate authority over its territory. This is something of a semantic point, but semantics are important when you're talking about government authority on the philosophical level, which is ultimately what all sovereignty-based arguments do.
Eminent Domain in the U.S. what are your thoughts?
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
True, but that's not actually the principle on which eminent domain as an inherent function of sovereignty is built. It's not that all property ultimately belongs to the government, it's that the government has ultimate authority over its territory. This is something of a semantic point, but semantics are important when you're talking about government authority on the philosophical level, which is ultimately what all sovereignty-based arguments do.
Yes, but in the U.S. government power is at least claimed to be derived from the people. So is it not a offense/perversion to that ideal at the very least that ultimately you could have something taken from you by shere force? If for no other reason that they view you as a scapegoat of getting in the way of 'the common good'?
Don't get me wrong I feel eminent domain has its place but ultimately it's a sh*ty way to treat those you claim to serve and derive your authority from.
Eminent Domain as a concept is basically fundamental to a government. If the sovereign is sovereign over the territory in question then it inherently has the right to control that territory.
Ultimately, all property rights are entirely at the sufferance of the sovereign power in question. If they aren't then the power in question is inherently not sovereign.
That being said, how the US lets eminent domain be abused is farcical. "We are going to seize your property so that we can sell it for more money to a property developer." or "We are going to seize this profit generating property of yours and then continue to run it exactly as you were except we now get to keep the profits." is something that should have been stomped on hard, but alas it has been allowed.
Personally? I would make the government pay a hundred times the fair market value (as determined by an independent assessor), tax free (or with the government in question picking up the tax bill) for anything seized under eminent domain and restrict the government in question for selling it or passing it along to another party for twenty years. If the government wants the property, then they can get it but they need a far better reason than "We want to make moneys."
Ultimately, all property rights are entirely at the sufferance of the sovereign power in question. If they aren't then the power in question is inherently not sovereign.
That being said, how the US lets eminent domain be abused is farcical. "We are going to seize your property so that we can sell it for more money to a property developer." or "We are going to seize this profit generating property of yours and then continue to run it exactly as you were except we now get to keep the profits." is something that should have been stomped on hard, but alas it has been allowed.
Personally? I would make the government pay a hundred times the fair market value (as determined by an independent assessor), tax free (or with the government in question picking up the tax bill) for anything seized under eminent domain and restrict the government in question for selling it or passing it along to another party for twenty years. If the government wants the property, then they can get it but they need a far better reason than "We want to make moneys."