Land is something that was there and not in any way created by man. “Owning” it is just absurd. That is exactly where the libertarian world view is most screwd up. Land ownership is not a relationship between the owner and the land, but rather between the owner and the state/mankind. It is a mere social construct, of all forms of ownership, the most arbitrary.

So, the U.S. fedral guvmint has as much “right” as any to do such things. Not that I think it should.

Land is something that was there and not in any way created by man. ???Owning?? it is just absurd.

Why? If someone sells you a log, it’s yours, you own it. Yet, it was once part of the land and not created by man.

So, the U.S. fedral guvmint has as much ???right?? as any to do such things.

And people who have beliefs like you are the reason why the state comes in and snatches land away from people.

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read the news on CNN. I’d like to think it’s all for the good and the law is applied with great care. But, seeing how everything else seems to go, somehow I feel we’ll be seeing some interesting results afterwards.

Finland has similar law but we have the opposite situation in Helsinki area. Especially city councils (or what you call them) of Espoo and Vantaa are not using their right to buy land from landowners for that adequate compensation.

Guess what, land prices are way too high because of “scarcity” of land (absurd concept in Finland and thus, house prices are also very high compared to average yearly income. So if the law is used properly, it mimimized excess land price speculation and community as whole benefits.

So if the law is used properly, it mimimized excess land price speculation and community as whole benefits.

Great, so they take away my house so someone else can benefit.

It’s these strict zoning laws that cause the scarcity of land and it’s the less-than-adequate long-distance public transportation that keep people close to the city raising prices even further.

The Kelo decision signals to every property developer in the US that if you just bribe enough town councilmen, you can get a tasty piece of property at your disposal by using government redistribution mechanisms. The whole thing stinks. Note that liberal justices supported Kelo and conservative justices opposed it.

Look, I am not saying that taking the homes of people is right or justified. But land ownership in the absolute sense – meaning you can do whatever with it and no one has any right to complain – is absurd, since land was there before man and it is fixed. Rearrangements in the form of government interventions have been in the past and will be done in the future. There is no going around that.

And, I should say, it is true that seizing land in the name of “progress” stinks big time. Especially if such arrangements are susceptible to private profiteering as seems to be the case with this one.

“Great, so they take away my house so someone else can benefit.”

I think the Finnish law is only about buying empty land or lot from private landowners. Free market principles do not always produce the best results for the community in all sectors. Sometimes government or local administration intervention is required.

One example is the sorry state of US health care. You have private insurance companies and private hospitals in the US but the most ineffective system in the world. Almost ten percent have no insurance at all and still 14 percent of GDP is wasted compared to 7-10 percent of other western nations with national health care covering everybody.

Runaway capitalism is just as bad as runaway socialism/communism. Both will produce basically the same result: minority rich and powerful elite and poor majority.

Sometimes government or local administration intervention is required.

I can’t see any just reason why the state should take your property. (assuming you haven’t done something illegal etc..) – There’s plenty of land in Finland, no need to steal it from others.

phil u say governments seizing land is wrong u say long distance public transport to cities is less than adequate. most effective long distance public transport commuting to work is rail, railtrack land was either bought freely or seized and the owners compensated so if u want better rail should the government be able to seize your house give u market price or above, or should the train stop in front of your house everybody get off walk around your house and get on the train behind your back fence taking care not to walk on your roses, and continue there journey. it has to be regulated tightly to serve the general public and not be done for private companies to gain but there is a case for it

tim73 clearly still doesn’t know that the reason why the US health care is so messed up is because it doesn’t operate under the free market. It’s far less a free market system then the one in Finland. The only free market about it is that it’s privately owned, everything else in it is _heavily_ regulated, with regulated insurances, regulated doctors licences, regulated doctors wages, regulated sertificates of need (i.e. where you can build a new hospitale), regulated intrest groups who are provided free or half free health care, regulated entrance for new medicines, etc. etc. etc. The reason why the Finnish system works somewhat well is because it’s not that much regulated. Capitalism doens’t lead to “the money ending for the rich”, capitalism is just the most effective wealth distributionsystem, where the average pay (without any unions) will end as the payment for most of the people and hence constructing a huge middle class (if they payment wasn’t the average one, it wasn’t called the average payment after all).

“Why? If someone sells you a log, it???s yours, you own it. Yet, it was once part of the land and not created by man.”

What is it that yuo’re trying to prove? This libertarian logic seems to be way above the common boolean logic, us merely mortals, have to live with.

Loved your post! Please check out our eminent domain battle….

http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org