Who decides "the greater good"?
What I say is, that a bunch of people would have no right to box someone in so that he could not get to work, the doctor, etc. That would be false imprison-
ment. So far, I approve of rights-of-way. But no further.
A man has a right to his own property. And if he refuses to move for any price (regardless of what anyone would call "reasonable") then he has a right not to. Regardless of what other people would call "the greater good", of of the size or number of their votes.

Thank you Larry, you saved me precious time.
Apparently in his reply, I see what you mean (when he asks, who gets sued with a GROUP dam the property around me and ruin my property... Duh, those responsible. And he starts with a legal argument)
One that makes judges seem infallible, btw... which we know better.

Where 2 rights collide is where society kicks in! Either to prevent, enforce, or repair (make whole).

Captain,
ChestyPuller is here just to draw people into arguing without resolution. He presents logical fallacies and straw man arguments.that can not be answered with facts or logic as the type of arguments he presents make no logical sense.

He comes with an opinion that he wants agreement with and will not give credence to any facts or logical proof. Any disagreement is met with more of the same fallacies. You will just be going around in circles as I have a couple of times. See his prior comments.

PSST, the Federalist Papers are used in the Supreme Court to help understand the 'true' meaning of the U.S. Constitution; as well they are used in Law education when needed and in the Congress or scholarly works on the U.S. Constitution...

...and the SCOTUS is interpreter of the U.S. Constitution above all others outside 2/3 of Congress and the Senate or the 2/3 of the States of the Republic.

On I am only here to "WIN", I only care about winning by using the Laws of this republic... Strawman arguments are more your forte to use shadow and fog to get your point as being correct.

Nice try using Clintonisc misdirection in your non-answer.

By the way Larry, your non-answer spoke volumes to all that read it...

If only the Federalist Papers made it into the Constitution. But they didn't.
If only Marbury vs Madison made it into the Constitution . But it Didn't.

As I recall you are not here to discuss but rather to "Win" arguments with Straw Man and other logical fallacy Arguments like these. If you want attention, affirmation and agreement just post something yourself and see what happens.

1) I'll let this add to my point: Professor John Eidsmoe writes: "The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America. "The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration."

2) Imminent Domain has been used for everything from Highways to taking property to build private owned Shopping Malls and Private Owned Stadiums... using a law incorrectly is not using the law, it is tricking the people and stealing land, power...etc

3) who does the 'Person' refusing to sell his 'OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY" "SUE" when the Damn spills onto his property in your scenario?

4) the 'Many' over the individual??? PSST that is why the "Founders" created a Republic form of government and not a Democracy... The personal rights of the 1 are equal to the rights of the many...

Maybe you should stop "WHIFFING" when it comes to knowing and understanding the laws of this republic and the rights of the people.

Question CaptainKirk, who holds the power in this republic the people down to the individual person or the government? Your answer will should the truth of whom is WHIFFING

Chesty... I don't understand your last sentence, please clarify...

Are you saying "the Decl. of Ind. is the actual 1st law in the US Code of Law"? That makes no sense.

But, lets continue on... I know people who ended up owning land next to a waste processing facility. NOTHING they could do about it.
Lets just say their little BAKERY didn't last long. Now, the waste processing facility was built long after they owned the land.

And the answer was: Tough Luck. They had the misfortune of being down wind from the facility, and the "rules" for controlling the foul smells were average measurements AROUND the facility.
This is where ZONING becomes really important.

We understand the LAWS. And I agree that this creates an issue. One that DOES exist today. Imminent Domain is often used, and I think it is fair.
My point was, WHAT RIGHT does ONE land owner have, to control the land of those around him in a civil society? Controlling his land is clear.
But if the community votes to rezone your land to be "dammable", and you refuse to sell for a "reasonable" price... Then the answer becomes: You will be dammed! (Pun intended).

BTW, if you SPILL into my property, I can sue. Again, a point I think I made. What is the maximum payout of such a lawsuit? Damages. Probably the value of the land, at the least, so I am made whole.

You are WHIFFING on the question at hand. At which point is this "pre-negotiated" by zoning/codes... And how can we change things moving forward?
What do you do when ONE person wants to exert their property rights against those around them? (This is not a 1:1 owner issue, but a MANY:1 relationship here, when does the many count?)
It aint always going to be fair, but the result should at least be equitable!

You can always do what the Oregon Fish and Wildlife did to the residents of Harney County and simply flood them out and then take over the land...

[/sarcasm]

Hmmm... Larry, could you answer this question; What power does the Federal Government have inside State borders when it comes to land?

Hint; read the U.S. Constitution as well as

Federalist
43: "a congressional act beyond its enumerated powers is "merely [an] act of usurpation" which "deserves to be treated as such."
45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce;...The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."

Supreme Court Cases
ie: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison (1803), "the powers of the [national] legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written."

Who is actually building the Damn? hmmm
By your statement if I built a sewage treatment plant around your property and it spilled onto your property... too bad so sad, correct?

Start studying the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the latter is the actual 1st law in the U.S. Code of Law

Does the 'person' live in one of the States of the United States of America? Do they own the land? Do they rent the land? Do they have a mortgage? Owe back property taxes for more then 2 years?

If yes to the first two questions and no to the remaining questions then, they own the land and the greater good will have to move to another location if they do not like it.

Whenever anyone mentions "the greater good" grab your wallet and your gun. There is noi greater good than individual rights and property rights.

Land is a scarce resource. It is sole conditionally until it is needed by society.

Eminent domain is the law of the land. If there is disagreement about a fair price then it should be a matter for courts. However, it is possible to get changes made to proposed public works (sometimes).

Offer him an "unreasonable" price.

Let the "greater good" pay handsomely, it it's truly for "the greater good".

I shudder when I hear "greater good", because it is usually not necessarily so. Vegas once condemned an apt. bldg. so Trump could build a casino. It was about money, but left many without housing. Now it is bike paths that are subjects of eminent domain seizure. Or 1,100 miles of Calif. coastline based on faux global warming. They think the glaciers never change, and so if one melts, they do not look at where another if forming, they don't even look for a ololcano under it, as CBS reported exactly such melting, but not the volcano part. Our community wanted to take air righst over part of our sub, until I pointed out the idiot sunning the project had not even read the rules correctly, the grant had to be resubmiitted, and the runway went in, did not affect our sub or the airspace. We need these land grabs better scrutinized, as they are often not well thought out, and the projects either are pointless or poorly designed. Florida once plowed up a newer sub, because a few residents refused to sell, when they wanted to get them off the coast. So, they made their homes worthless, with no access, something was rotten there. The UN was in some way involved as well.

Busy is good.

I've been busy. And I haven't come across a post where I could contribute anything in a long time.

However tempting it may be to force that guy to sell, once the camel's nose is in the tent there's no getting him back out.

I would offer him a buyout for a higher price -- maybe a much nicer home near the new lake. Or I'd wait until he dies or becomes unable to manage his affairs, and then make an offer to his heir or trustee.

If neither works -- even the Coase Theorem can't fix stupid.

For what it's worth, I do see limited acceptable uses for eminent domain. If a builder wants to run a cable, pipeline, or road tunnel far enough underneath someone's property that it won't affect him, then I'd vote for it. But I can't see a dam meeting those conditions.

Thank you.

Wow, Temlakos. I haven't seen you around here in ages!

This is an excellent question. I agree with CptKirk, "The whole point of a civil society is to spell out these kinds of things".

When we consider the environment of the society we are dealing with, we could hypothesize that it is entirely Objectivist or thatthe society is a mixture of the political philosophies we see 'in the wild' today. Let us assume that the person will not voluntarily move for any reason (eg this home location is his religious shrine). How can we approach this?

If we assume that the society of the dam is entirely Objectivist, it is easy to see - just from our experience here in this virtual Gulch - that this already includes a wide spread of opinions between philosophical purity and empirical functionality. Some of us think that the person can be involuntarily moved if the reason is great; some do not.

If we assume a 'wild group' of political philosophies, such as exists in the real world, then the range of opinions gets even larger. We have to live with all these groups and take into account their different philosophies - we cannot assume that they will agree with us.

I think that CptKirk is right in that, in order to live in the real world, the rules must be clear and consistent. As an individualist, I would prefer that these rules hugely favor the rights ot the individual, but if the outcome of WWII depended on moving 'that person from that bit of land'...then move the sucker!

Jan

No nail house I’ve seen protects a house in the middle and under a new lake.

I always wonder "who" determines what the "greater good" is.

How do you get the water needed if one person refuses to sell? Build around him. Build a retainer wall as high as the lake will be deep and tell him it is his problem to come an go. In China they call them nail houses and sometimes they just build around them, the property value plunges and the owner may wish he had sold, if he doesn't and he still wants to live there let him. The assumption that something couldn't be achieved without ultimate use of violence to get compliance is to accept that it can then be done on all basis for any need the government deems imperative.
The Burlington Northern Railway was built entirely with private funds and no government interference with property rights. He had no way to force people off their land, he either worked with them or around them. And a transcontinental railway was built for less money and operated more efficiently and charged lower prices that the subsidized railroads.