Posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:48 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
I undeerstand externalities, having taken econ at Yale and elsewhere, and having worked as an intern at CBO, but what is disturbing about this is the following quote from the article:
"In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation "in a way that tilts almost every time in the government's favor.""
I smell a civil war on the horizon if we don't start putting some people in Washington that are true to the Oaths that they swear that UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution of these United States.
"In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation "in a way that tilts almost every time in the government's favor."
I hate the word utility.
Screw that commie Millsian crap.
Good analysis of yours to Torie @ # 19:
"For someone familiar with the term "externalities," you are surprisingly hasty. Risk associated with uncertainty regarding property rights is an enormous negative externally. In the limit, when property rights are not enforces at all, you arrive at the Hobbesian nightmare.
"So, if you want to take into account externalities, then take into account all known ones. As soon as you include that which stems from the owner's uncertainty about his rights to the property in his possession, it will outweigh any other positive ones you may come across."
"Make Tories proud --- be consistent."
My comment: Well put!
Knowing something about Lake Tahoe, the problem was it was being slowly turned from a pristine lake into a cesspool from too rapid development without adequate sewage infrastruture.
On the related note of property, you might be interested in this story if you haven't heard about it already:
"Migrants awarded vigilante's Ariz. ranch"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466905/posts
Risk is a cost. But risk associated with trying to incorporate economic externalities into the price system is an economically efficient risk cost. Of course, what was happening here was going off at the handle without really knowing the facts of the case. It was one of those ideological knee jerk thingies. I will react negatively to that each and every time it happens, unless my knee happens to be jerking. And so it goes.
I hadn't thought of John Stuart Mill as a commie unitl you mentioned it just now. I suppose there are "dialectical" & even Marxist implications of "utilitarianism."
;^)
After all, aren't "needs" the rough equivalent of "happiness" or in the later ulilitarian's terms: "Utils." ("Utils" were defined as "Units of happiness" or "Units of pleasure," as I recall.)(sp?)
Are we talking with or without money involved?
Thanks for the following Link:
"Migrants awarded vigilante's Ariz. ranch"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466905/posts
Implicitly trusting professional big-government politicians kills free societies, and therefore is a terrible, self-destructive idea.
This statement in itself could mean anything. I for one am not going to sway back and forth with every article that comes out on Roberts. The stuff I have been able to dig up on him shows him to be conservative.
Lawyers work for people and argue their cases, criminal lawyers defend known murderers frequently and try to get them off. I do not know for sure if he actually utter these words or not and will not allow myself to think one way or another until I can research this on my own and find out what he actually said and what he argued for or against.
The main thing is this, there is nothing in what this article says that indicates he is for the public purpose stance of the supreme court, what the article talks about is the compensation factor. We don't know what the whole case was in Tahoe but I am going to find out and as far as the quote he made about the 5th amendment I am going to find out what he meant by that, indeed, I am going to find out if he even said it.
Karl Marx couldn't have put it better in the first plank of the "Communist Manifesto".
Which doesn't mean quite yet that I will associate Roberts with your philosophy.
As it stands..our only defense is to pass state legislation or initiatives to limit takings to govt. needs and not private.
I'm afraid on the federal level the decision is done for a long time.
With a left/right we need to handle this on state, county, and city level. Cut them off at the knees.
What's commie about utility?
NO LONGER A JOKE .....
One man says to a second man: "Do you believe in the First Amendment freedom of speech?"
The second man says: "Of course I do."
The first man then asks: "Do you believe in the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms?"
The second man replies: "No, I don't."
The first man insists: "Then shut up!"
The moral of the story is: you can have your rights, but you have to protect and defend them, too.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Ronald Reagan
Many thanks for your kind words.
Amen to you at #37.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.