Which other commodities that I own would you support the government forcing me to sell to someone against my will, as long as he could make more efficient economical use of it? Presumably all of them.
And who defines what is the most efficient economical use of a commodity? In my world, it's the free market; in yours, it seems, it's the government.
People like you frighten me.
Don't be frightened be happy, what he describes is simply Eurotrash economics.
"Which other commodities that I own would you support the government forcing me to sell to someone against my will, as long as he could make more efficient economical use of it? Presumably all of them.
And who defines what is the most efficient economical use of a commodity? In my world, it's the free market; in yours, it seems, it's the government.
People like you frighten me."
I did not create the legal regime you describe.
That which "frightens you" is the law of the United States of America, imposed by your Supreme Court. I did not do this to you.
In fact, if I were a US Supreme Court justice, I would define "public use" as being DIRECT public use: bases, roads and the like.
I would go farther and read the word "necessary" before "public use", making it such that only the government could take private land, only for direct government ownership and purposes, and that the government would have to show, before the appropriate tribunal (which would NOT be controlled by the unit of government proposing the taking) that it was necessary for the government to take the land. In other words, I would make the presumption of taking against the government and make the government prove that it needed to take before any taking was permitted.
And then I would go further and read the sphere of privacy of family life around property that is specifically people's HOMES, because this property is more emotionally important than mere commercial property. In this US case, there is an 80+ year old couple who have lived in a house for 50 years of marriage. They will be evicted, and all experience has shown that, so deracinated so abruptly, they will probably die very soon afterwards. Taking old people's homes is usually a death sentence if they do not want to go. So, I would make it impossible for even the government to take private homes, except for national emergencies in which life or limb were at stake. Economic growth would never be an argument for the taking of a home under American "eminent domain" were I am American Supreme Court justice or Parliamentarian.
But I am not.
Your Supreme Court has made takings for purely economic efficiency reasons the law of the land, and there is no counterpoise to this decision in the United States.
It is now the law of the land in America.
And I merely see the enhanced business opportunities presented by it, and intend to profit therefrom for myself and my social partners.
Do not blame ME that this is American law.
If I ruled you, nobody could remove you from your house unless the Germans were invading the beach in front of it.
Blame the government of the United States.]
And don't blame me for seeing the enhanced profit potential in land development when the old lady and her pigeon coop cannot block my project in Connecticut. It can block it, and does, in Paris.
If I were making the laws, I would side with the lady and her pigeons, because I might be her one day.
But I don't.
French law is where the law should be on this.
American law is where the US Supreme Court has put it.
This is unjust, but it opens opportunities, and those opportunities will most certainly be exploited by me and others.
If you don't like that, then change your laws.