I didn't say that this power should be opposed. Rather, it should be controlled democratically. Maybe Chuck0 is against eminent domain per se, but I'm not.
[this is a problem with e-mail conversations. Subtleties get lost!]
I had said:>>In reality, pipelines affect a number of property-owners and those owners not directly in the way of the line. So it's a political issue, not just a matter of one-on-one contracting. The pipeline company may also have political clout and so needs countervailing power in the form of a referendum.<<
JKS:>My point about keeping it comparitive bilateral doesn't exclude politics, if it's just a contact, no one needs eminent domain. But sometimes someone may be unwilling to sell when a private project is publicly beneficial. taht's why we have a takibgs caluse in the Constitution permitting the exercise of eminent domain.<
Again, I'm not against takings per se. Under a referendum process, they might become more common.
>>>To politicize every such issue by calling for a vote on each issue
would be a heavy burden on economic development and on the
electorate.<<<
me:>>I think I'd rather have political decisions made in a politicized way (open, transparent, contested) than to have politicians and technocrats make them "in our name" in some smoke-filled room.<<
JKS:>Be basic conflict here between representativea nd direct democarcy. But a referendum ain't the Athenian Agora, and its naive to think --in California of all places! -- that the process is fair and tarnsparent. And it is overly cynical to think that even in a city like Chicago where there is clout that most of routine takings are corrupt. Morever, we have a version of Oscar Wilde's complaint that the problem wioth socialism is that it takes too many evenings. Frankly, I and most don't want to be bothered with that shit, my one sustained experience with a taking case (the Will county pipeline) did me for a lifetime. Most poeople, including you if you ahd close-up experience, feel the same way. Let the agencies handle it. If the property owners don't like it, they can sue.<
1. Referenda are better than having dictatorship. But you're right that the ballot can be too long. I don't think judges should be elected, for example. Incumbent politicians seem a good group to appoint judges. However, both politicians and judges should be subject to recall. The implementation of specific details seems beyond the scope of this discussion.
2. Referenda aren't the same as direct democracy. It's not Athenian or Morrisian democracy. As for the idea that socialism involves too many meetings, we should compare the number of meetings to that of real-world corporate/bureaucratic life.
3. JKS writes:> If the property owners don't like it, they can sue.<
Not only does this presume that these people can afford to sue (this is not personal injury, where lawyers work on contingency), but it makes a common mistake: this mistake is to look for individual solutions to political problems. Instead of OSHA (increasingly gutted by politicians), we get worker's comp and disability insurance. Instead of those (criticized as costly and a welfare program, respectively), we get a raft of law-suits filling up the courts and GOPsters complaining about too many lawsuits and calling for caps on benefits.
>>Who defines what "economic development" is? I say that it should be
the people, not the insiders.<<
>"The people." Who are they? Look, this isn't hard. In the real world,
without profitability and economic growth, "the people" -- say working
class people, probably my income is too high to make me one of them,
will be unemployed. There are tradeoffs and some increase in
profiotabiolity and GDP has bad effects. We have elected officials and
agencies to wit\h the expertise to evaluate these questions and courts
to contest their decisions, as well as elections to punish politicians
and judges who defy what "the people" want. It's called democracy.
Sure there is corruption and clout. Referenda don't change that,<
1. There's more than corruption and clout. The kind of democracy we have reflects the capitalism that it exists within. My basic point is to favor the sovereign people over property-owners and politicians.
2. As I've said before, it's not eminent domain that's the problem. Rather, it's who controls that process.
3. So if it isn't the people, who does define "economic development"? Is it the insider politicians? the academics? the businesspeople?
4. You'd think that by now people on the left would reject the idea of a small minority of folks who define themselves as speaking for the people (bourgeois politicians, so-called "Leninists", etc.) Maybe I'm naïve.
JKS:>I should mention at 20 some years ago in Ann Arbot I helped organize an antinuclear referendum that got buried when the other side dumpeda quarter million dollars on us. We got 33% of the vote spending $12K, which was actually pretty damn good, but I am intimatelt familiar with how referenda can be manipulated.<
who said that life was easy?
>Also, I did a lot of antidevelopment work lobbying city council with
public activism, and we actually stopped a housing complex
9subsequent, much later, built, but ina an acceptable way unlike
proposal wes topped) and a boondoggle conference center that was also
clouted up the wazoo -- there is still in Ann Arbor what I think of as
the Justin & Janis Memorial Parking lot which was to have been the
site of this potential disaster. So I also know that an active and
motivated citizenry can work through representative channels to stop
bad development.<
good.
me:>>>Again, various "intermediate institutions" (newspapers, political parties, etc.) between individual voters and the government can help inform the voters.<<<
>But as I said, I don't want to know. I spent a lifetime's work on
land valuation with that fucking pipeline.<
Look, I don't know anything about some wiseass politicians running for assistant dogcatcher and the Jefe Máximo of the Mosquito Abatement District. Instead, I scan what the L.A. WEEKLY and the L.A. TIMES say about these worthies. (I am far from alone in this behavior.) If they both agree, I vote with them. If not, I study the issues more closely. It's not that hard to be an informed voter. (Ignorance may be bliss, but it's highly risky and not expensive to avoid.) Just as I can get a really good idea about who to vote for, I can do the same for propositions.
People chose the intermediate institutions that fit their values. The institutions, among other things, provide information to them.
me:>>One of the reasons why top-down "solutions" relying on polticians, judges, and technocrats (assuming, it seems, that these fathers "know best") are so popular is that the intermediate institutions are so weak. But that tells us that we need stronger institutions -- "civil society" -- not that we should give up and let people make decisions for us.<<
>Right, you don't like representative democracy. I do. That's the
difference between us.<
Unfortunately, you seem to think in black/white terms. Either it's "representative democracy" (a real-world institution that seems mixed up with an idealized vision) or it's "direct democracy" (with endless meetings). Referenda are neither of these. It's a more democratic way of organizing democracy.
What I'm saying is that politicians should be held responsible. Is that asking too much?
I don't get the purpose of "That's the difference between us." Are you trying to shut down the discussion?
>Brw,a further note: the takings power is a reminder that property is
not a natural right but ultimately a conditional grant of the
sovereign -- in a democracy the people -- and can be reclaimed at fair
market value for public use. The left should celebrate the use of the
takings power. The libertarian right is clear on thsi: they hate the
takings power. Richard Epstein of the U of C even wrote a book,
Takings, suggesting that the taking clause should be interpreted as
broadly to protect private proprty as due process used to be. Read the
book, it will hekp change your mind about whose side the takings power
benefits.<
I think you're conflating my position (that government power should be subject to democratic checks) with the knee-jerk opposition to "takings." -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.