[Poohbah]

You are the only libertarian I've run across with a supportive attitude toward emiment domain. Every other LPer I've met holds that property rights are absolute, the gubmint taking your property for public use with "fair compensation" is inherently unfair, and that they'd cheerfully write a Constitutional Amendment forbidding the practice.

And the "beneficial use" clauses of water laws in arid states would be enough to send most Libertarians I've met into apoplexy.

[weikel]

I'd only allow eminent domain for essential infrastructure and compensation should be triple the worth of the property.

[exodus]

To: exodus; Cultural Jihad; Roscoe; wimpycat
You are the only libertarian I've run across with a supportive attitude toward emiment domain. Every other LPer I've met holds that property rights are absolute, the gubmint taking your property for public use with "fair compensation" is inherently unfair, and that they'd cheerfully write a Constitutional Amendment forbidding the practice. And the "beneficial use" clauses of water laws in arid states would be enough to send most Libertarians I've met into apoplexy.
# 263 by Poohbah
**********************

I don't agree with "fair compensation" laws; the fair compensation forced upon owners is never enough to replace what is lost.

I think that people forced to give up their property should be in the drivers seat - forget officially declared "fair," and give the owner enough to replace what he's lost.

My opinion on "beneficial use" would depend on your definition of "beneficial."

Water needed for developement I can support. If "beneficial" means needed for conservation, I've got a problem.

[Roscoe]

You are the only libertarian I've run across with a supportive attitude toward emiment domain.

His claim that representative government is a "libertarian" value also struck me as novel.