I think that eminent domain needs to be massively streamlined and way easier to do.

It's crazy how with CA high speed rail, if there's like one property owner in the way of the train who doesn't wanna give up their land, that property owner can just shut down progress for months. It's a train that's going to be used by millions of people, fuck you, you stupid selfish piece of shit. Go use up some other state's water.

I had this conversation a while ago with my friend and she said she's in favor of it as long as it's not bulldozing a black person's house. And I said, most of the farmers, statistically are gonna be white people. But she was like no, I'm against it if even ONE black person gets their land taken away from them. I appreciate her as a friend but I think her brain is kinda soup when it comes to politics, and a LOT of people are operating on that level.

Top | New | Old

OogieBoogie · F

I dunno.....sometimes a person's house is their home.
A home is way different than 'just where you live".

They could have trees they grew for 30 years. A house they tweaked inyota home tjattis perfect for them . A home they spent 40 years paying off, watching their kids grow up in, have their pets buried in the back yard.

Im guessing you've never had such a connection, so you dont see the loss it can affect someone with.

Often..... these people arent compensated for the value they have put into thier home for themselves - they are compensated for the objective social value of their house.

Im not sure its fair to uproot and destroy someones whole lifes effort for convenience for others.
Its actually tyranny really.

Its like wjen another country goes - we want what you have and we are gonna take it.

Is that fair?

View 32 more replies »

This message was deleted by its author.

MethDozer · M

@BlueVeins actuaries are horrible people. Their whole existence is to make sure insurance companies dont have to do their intended purpose.

The idea that it's OK to compromise on one person's rights for the sake of the majority is just very basic civics

no it is not. Especially for frivolous shit like what youre throwing down.

MethDozer · M

@BlueVeins plus youre failing to consider whos lives are made worse by this train. Some would like others would hate it. But you only side with the nancy boy yuppie side .

SnickersDOM · M

I wish it was your house you just bought yesterday (didn't inherit), I know you'd be singing a different tune

Damn

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

View 35 more replies »

BlueVeins · 26-30

@MethDozer It is arbitrary. You may have improved it (many landowners dont) but even that isnt philosophical grounding to make it yours. Someone else may just as well want to improve it and control that land as well.

BlueVeins · 26-30

@MethDozer I'm not saying might makes right. The government should get final say on land bc the government is accountable to their constituents. A private land owner is not.

MethDozer · M

@BlueVeins the ownwe of his personal property is the constituent and no givernment should have a monopoly of violence. What your suggesting is exactly might makes right.

Someone else may just as well want to improve it and control that land as well

its not arbitrary at all. Someone else can want to to do something witj it all they want, its yours because you're using it, you're living on it, you are invested in it. That's exact opposite of arbitrary. Youre calling it selfish, but your making child's arguementd here for your own petty wants. You use the word moral and philosphical but you're makkng childish nihislt reasonings.

The govermment you want just makes anarchism that more plausable and justified.

Add a comment...