Delegating self defense is not surrender of property rights.

War is a breakdown in civilization: It necessarily includes immoral violation of rights on a large scale. All wars have been that. Confronted by such an attack there is no choice but to fight back and destroy the enemy, employing means not otherwise proper for civilization.

There is no such thing as a "fair price" for something that is not for sale by its owner, and the legal standard of "market value" is not a "fair price" for those who might be willing to sell but only for more.

Eminent domain is vicious collectivism. Its inclusion in the Constitution was a major mistake. It is now much worse as it has been reinterpreted and expanded to be much broader, including for powers for which the government is not Constitutionally authorized at all and the expansion of eminent domain from "public use" to "public purpose".

It is "possible" "sometimes" to stop abuses, such as National Parks initiated or expanded by seizing private property, but no one should have to go through that and there is no authorization in the Constitution for it at all.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." -- Ayn Rand, "What Is Capitalism" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

There is no need for property rights in commodities that are not "scarce". Ownership corrupted as "conditional" on "needed by society" is a thoroughly collectivist premise. Without property rights no other rights are possible.

See "The Property Status of Airwaves", also in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Short of an all-out nuclear conflict, war does not entail the breakdown of civilization except in a nation that is on the brink of total defeat. And modern warfare is more likely to involve drone strikes and cyberattacks than armies running over your land.

An Objectivist government, as part of its mission to defend against foreign invaders, would have to plan out its response to a possible attack before any actual attack occurred. There are many ways to implement such a plan, and under certain circumstances it might involve temporarily suspending a property owner’s ability to use and dispose of a portion of his property. This would be an exercise of the government’s delegated right of self-defense:

“The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement.” --Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”

Any such plan would have to include a means of compensating the affected property owner (or owners) once the national emergency is over.

In a war civilization has broken down; armies running over your land makes the rest secondary. It's still immoral to take property.

The principle of property rights remains a true moral principle regardless of government violating it. You should be "aware" to stay out of dark alleys in the slums, too, but it doesn't excuse the crimes.

Even under current law you are entitled to be paid the market value of property seized by government; that "market value" is required to be assessed without regard to change in value caused by the government seizure.

There is no such thing as a fair price for something that isn't for sale, yet that is the government standard.

Not only is it collectivist, the wording of the question in terms of "a dam needs to be built" -- as if the dam itself wants something as an intrinsic value, rather than the desires of some group of people who "need" something at someone else's expense -- hides the essence.

The answer to "what do you when...?" is "Nothing" -- except reject the premise and oppose those who do claim they should take the property.

The quote from your post is what you wrote, not imagination. Rejecting it is not "unrelated subjective ranting" and "nitpicking". Please consult the guidelines for posting here.

More unrelated subjective rantings. Your comments are only about rejecting and nit picking what you imagine is meant.
Collectivist? ROFLMAO see my web site http://www.TheSocietyProject.org CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT – NOT THE PEOPLE!

Re: “What if that private land is needed for the national defense?” Under the current U.S. Constitution, taking the land is permissible. Fifth Amendment: “ . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” National defense is a public use. Anyone buying or selling land after adoption of this amendment was aware (or should have been aware) of this constitutional exception to absolute ownership, and should have factored that knowledge into the price he was willing to offer. A government based on Objectivist principles might frame the issue differently and put different procedures in place for securing the national defense.

The OP's question appears to be framed from a utilitarian perspective, as in "the greatest good for the greatest number," rather than an Objectivist perspective. As such, there is no proper answer other than to say that the "greater good" is not a valid standard for deciding questions of this nature. Furthermore, there is no means of determining a "reasonable price" other than the price that a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon. The number of people who would be "better off" if the holdout were forced to surrender his property is irrelevant.

Rejecting your collectivist support of government seizing land by eminent domain as "might makes right" is not a "cliche" and not a "substitute for thought". "Might makes right" is what you wrote in:

"This is a non issue. It is a matter of power. Govt got it ...you don't. Govt uses force. The people granted govt the power of eminent domain. If the Govt proves a value for the many then Tough friggin pattooies they take your land."

"Tough friggin pattooies they take your land" is too bizarre to qualify as a cliche, but it is a "substitute for thought".

No dam ever "needs to be built." Sometimes they're a good thing, but they are never necessary. People can do what's needful but they may not trample the rights of others for their convenience.

Touche with a Cliche that substitutes for thought. The only part of that response that might correlate to what I wrote is "Huh".

Valid question. Yet there are circumstances when the existence of a nation is at stake, as history proves constantly and as nations disappear. Would you loose a war or a battle, and allow people to die, because an individual refuses you the passage through his property?

Then join the military and defend the nation, if you think so.

Larry, is trying to use clintonisc defections to keep from answering and being proven idiotic in his argument... that is fine, rather not waste my time on his hiding.

As to the Suing I mentioned, you said the people [individuals] around him have the right to do with their land what they want correct? Well so doesn't Person X. Now if Larry in my scenario has the right to sue me for damage, who would person X sue in your scenario for damage?

You see the point is that when you formulate an answer you need to work it out to its fullest to ensure the answer is the best one for the issue.

If anyone recalls the Founders and Framers of this republic design a system where the majority does not have power of the individuals rights and therein lies the problem with this issue; the individual has the right to stay and be protected by the gov't in his right to stay.

Who determines that? Do we bow to AOC because she and her ilk claim that the world will END in 12 years due to global war...climate change?
Our very existence could be at stake!

If it is for the National Defense the State would have to work with the person being the Land would be inside the Border of a State.

Now using your scenario in modern terms:
The person, we will call John Wayne, owns property along the Southern Border of Arizona about 25 miles worth and the need would be for building the Wall.

In this regard the State would pay, by way of a reimbursement from the Federal Government, John Wayne for only a small portion of his property paying him 'more' then fair market value; as was paid to John McCain, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and several others for their land.

If John Wayne still did not want to sell, then the Wall would border both sides of his property and the Border Patrol Agents would set up their security outpost at his property line to protect the United States until said time as John Wayne changed his mind, died or fell behind on his property taxes for two years. Then the State could legally take over the property, Treaty the border land over to the Federal gov't the Wall could be built and the State would then Auction off or develop the land for Public usage.

You may want to explore a very real possibility that if a common defense is not implemented, at all costs (when needed), that nation, and its individuals, may cease to exist. There will be no morals left to protect.

There is no reason why Eminent Domain should be allowed to exist in the United States of America. It ought to be abolished my Constitutional Amendment.

Oh "Might makes right", Huh?

Right on!

The nation does not have the right to trample the rights of the individual because of its "need".

Here is a perfect example of a law thought out by the Founders and then misused by those in power today.
The Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) facility just evicted several groups dedicated to veterans, including a nonprofit that for decades has comforted dying vets and another that helps those who are disabled. A top official has pleaded guilty to multiple felonies last year (2018) for taking bribes from a parking lot operator that defrauded the agency out of millions This month at least five established nonprofits dedicated to providing veterans with therapeutic activities, counseling and other valuable survival skills have been evicted WHILE ‘PRIVATE’ BUSINESS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JUST VETERASN AFFAIRS remain with more moving in now that the other offices have been emptied by eviction.

The Jewish War Veterans is among the organizations that just got kicked out along with Twilight Brigade, the Disabled American Veterans, Vet-to-Vet and the Association for Parrot C.A.R.E., which provides therapeutic activities for vets at its parrot sanctuary.
The 338-acre property in West Los Angeles, which includes the National Veterans Park and Veterans Home, was deeded to the federal government in 1888 for the specific purpose of caring for disabled veterans. Thousands of disabled veterans once lived on the grounds, which also had churches, theaters, a library and post office. In the 1960s and 1970s the VA quietly closed the facilities, according to the American Legion, and ousted mentally disabled veterans.
In recent years, the property has been used for many causes unrelated to veterans. Among them is a stadium for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) baseball team, an athletic complex for a nearby private high school, laundry facilities for a local hotel, storage and maintenance of production sets for 20th Century Fox Television, the Brentwood Theatre, soccer practice and match fields for a private girls’ soccer club, a dog park, and a farmer’s market. All of these placed into the grounds meant for veterans by State “imminent domain”

Now remember, the Founders designed an idea that all power comes from the individual and the Framers but that exact idea into the U.S. Constitution... yet through decades of de-education the citizenry has no idea who has the power and who doesn't.

Remember the U.S. Constitution is nothing more then a piece of parchment with ink on it... It is "We the People..." that are meant to keep it alive

Too bad. The dam builders would be free to try to go and build their dam somewhere else on the body of water.