andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>The power of eminent domain is supported by the
>principle that private property rights are not
>absolute or natural, that all property rights are
>ultimately conditional grants from the sovereign (in
>the old days, the King, today the people) permitted on
>the notion that these rights will be used in ways that
>are beneficial to the public. In that sense this old
>common law principle and the power derived from it is
>socialistic, and we should defend it.\
>
But wait, is this about displacing Bill Gates's mansion to build a park? or a hospital?
This seems to be about displacing relatively poor people in order to build something that is more "productive" strictly in capitalist terms. This says in effect that capital can/should trump mere private property. It asserts that private property that can generate profits and provide jobs trumps private property that is not so productive. Of course the justification given is always that of "benefit to the people" and if you belive that capitalism is the only possible system, then this makes a sliver of sense. The thing is I don't belive that.
I'm sure that the politicians who are selling off the rain forests and the natural resources of the "developing" world are also reassuring everyone that this is for the benefit of the people....because after all, how can there be any benefit outside of the circuit of capital?
Joanna
>
>