That's the funny thing about freedom. If that property owner doesn't want a road through their property, who are you or anyone else to tell them they have to allow it so other people can benefit?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's the funny thing about freedom. If that property owner doesn't want a road through their property, who are you or anyone else to tell them they have to allow it so other people can benefit?
someone who needs to get places, like everyone else, doesn't everyone need to get places?
There's the part that you keep overlooking though. Freedom has nothing to do with what someone else might "need".
To force people to do something they don't want is no one's right. It doesn't matter what "everyone needs", if we have to force that way of being onto everyone.
On the other hand I have a freedom to go places don't I? A good compromise that we have in the US to these competing freedoms is giving people the fair market value of their property in instances where a road or border wall is needed.
You have the freedom to go places so long as the land owners allow you passage, sure.
A "good compromise" is to still force that landowner to sell part of their land, whether they want to or not, so long as you're giving them a "fair amount of money" when you take it?
yes, does this look like a good solution?
Land is just property and when you get the fair market value for it then you can go purchase equivalent land if that is what you want to do.
I acknowledge the ability of governments to make some of these things an easier task. I don't agree that the task should be made easier at the violation of anyones consent.
The way this worked before eminent domain, is there had to be an agreeable route chosen by those involved before a road was built.
Much of the state I am located in will no longer be able to utilize eminent domain because people are choosing the idea that negotiating a route is a better idea than ignoring consent.
So in this particular area, (and many others) the market place of ideas is serving subjective value of individual sovereignty over central planning.
In the end the roads get built by the companies that should do the best in cost, quality and time. This will happen whether the state exists or not, the only difference is the amount of consent that is violated in the process.
There was never such a time in the US, when and were was that?
What state will no longer be able to utilize eminent domain?
with the state roads are built by private companies in the most expensive, shoddy and slow manner one can imagine until you go to a place where the state does not build roads, then they are fucking terrible dirt tracks or simply nonexistent.
You make them a deal they cannot resist. They are paid well to give up a tiny fraction of their land to allow a road to be built. We already have plenty of examples of roads with large turns and other obstacles that were NOT resolved. The state simply bypasses those areas. It can and would be done without theft as it has before.
Eminent domain is typically that, people are paid market value and holdouts are paid well above market value.