Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 04:23:18 GMT
tonyp wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
There's nothing contradictory about it. Theft is just theft, and if it wears the beard of legality, it's legalized.
As a blanket statement, that's just wrong. The only difference between a "theft" and a "purchase" is the _price_.
But in eminent domain cases, there's no right to negotiate price. The seller is over a barrel - there's a condemnation in the works.
If I offer you a thousand bucks for your car, you refuse the offer, and I impose the deal on you anyway, you can claim to be a victim of "theft". Now, substitute "million" for "thousand". Still feel robbed?
If you offer me a million, I'd take it. But eminent domain deprives
me of the ability to use withdrawal from the transaction as a tactic to obtain price.
-- TP
-- Les Cargill .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: tonyp
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- References:
- US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: tonyp
- US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- Prev by Date: Re: per capita GDP numbers : bogus?
- Next by Date: Re: What have Conservatives done?
- Previous by thread: Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- Next by thread: Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|