Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

["Hagrid"]

http://www.soulawakenings.com/inquirer.jpg

Yup, nothing like backstabbing....  Thanks for the validation, Russell.  Keep proving my point... I expect nothing less and nothing more from the radical fringers.

[Steve]

"Tom got tired of the good-article/bad-article debate, and proposed the Newswire section for ALL articles referencing the FSP, regardless of people's opinions."

So are all the mentions of Lauren on the fsp site now? Tom didn't want to put them up for me at the time.

We had a dilemma: on the one hand, she was acting way outside the FSP mission (in another state), but on the other, she was bringing us publicity.  As to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's decision, libertarians are also split: even though the practical result sucked, the Supreme Court acted in favor of states rights, *restricting* the power of the federal government.  Some libertarians support the idea of Eminent Domain as a necessary evil, though I disagree with them.  You can read about these issues, and yes, Lauren herself, on the ED Issue page and Newswire:
http://www.freestateproject.org/news/issues/eminent_domain.php
http://www.freestateproject.org/news/newswire/

[eukreign]

Some libertarians support the idea of Eminent Domain as a necessary evil, though I disagree with them.

Are there any FSP members who support eminent domain as a necessary evil?

[lloydbob1]

Again, exactly the response I expected.

See the answer here: http://forum.freestateproject.org//index.php?topic=11037.msg148440#msg148440

Stop expecting me to answer you in public. It won't happen, because I know who else reads the forums.

I have stopped, Seth, I can only wonder why.  Perhaps seeing proof that individual activities harm the FSP, would get the people performing them to start thinking about their actions.

["Hagrid"]

Perhaps seeing proof that individual activities harm the FSP, would get the people performing them to start thinking about their actions.

You have far more confidence in their thinking process.  Perhaps you can make it happen.
I'm not tilting at windmills any longer.

[Steve]

Some libertarians support the idea of Eminent Domain as a necessary evil, though I disagree with them.

Are there any FSP members who support eminent domain as a necessary evil?

I can't answer that question, but the Holdout Problem link on the ED page
http://www.freestateproject.org/news/issues/eminent_domain.php
will take you to an article that originally appeared in The Free Liberal:
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001168.html

Again, I disagree with the author (and I exchanged several e-mails with him about it), but I acknowledge his point.  I can imagine having ED allowed/disallowed at the local level, and we would be free to choose the cities we live in. Time would show whether the ED cities were better or worse off.

[eukreign]

will take you to an article that originally appeared in The Free Liberal:
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001168.html

I stopped reading at about this part:

The rights of homeowners to do whatever they want with or on their land has always been heavily restricted, and always will be in any workable society (the alternative would be that each landowner is the ruler of his own sovereign nation).

The alternative sounds excellent to me :-) Why would anyone believe otherwise?

[kater]

Actually, the more likely point is that a libertarian could think that Kelo was rightly decided because it shouldn't have been a federal issue.  As much as my sympathies run in the other direction, I find it hard to logically dispute this point; if you take federalism seriously, you have to take all of it, and incorporation (enforcing the Bill of Rights against the states) is a pretty obvious encroachment on state authority.  State eminent domain belongs in state courts regarding state law--where the citizens of that state can threaten to oust their entire legislature come November if the law isn't fixed.

[Steve]

Actually, the more likely point is that a libertarian could think that Kelo was rightly decided because it shouldn't have been a federal issue.  As much as my sympathies run in the other direction, I find it hard to logically dispute this point; if you take federalism seriously, you have to take all of it, and incorporation (enforcing the Bill of Rights against the states) is a pretty obvious encroachment on state authority.  State eminent domain belongs in state courts regarding state law--where the citizens of that state can threaten to oust their entire legislature come November if the law isn't fixed.

And in fact there has been a huge reaction in many states to restrict ED. 

[Steve]

will take you to an article that originally appeared in The Free Liberal:
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001168.html

I stopped reading at about this part:

The rights of homeowners to do whatever they want with or on their land has always been heavily restricted, and always will be in any workable society (the alternative would be that each landowner is the ruler of his own sovereign nation).

The alternative sounds excellent to me :-) Why would anyone believe otherwise?

I know what you mean.  I argued with the guy that these so-called "market failures" are usually rather "imagination failures", but oh well.  I'm an anarchist, and do have these edge-case disagreements with minarchists. But I linked to his article as a good reference for the Holdout Problem, and a good overview of the opposing side's case.

[Russell Kanning]

Yup, nothing like backstabbing....  Thanks for the validation, Russell.  Keep proving my point... I expect nothing less and nothing more from the radical fringers.

I was helping people identify you as Harry Potter not Gandalf

[JonM]

If the Supreme Court had actually supported states rights in all the cases they decided then, like say California's medical marijuana, it would be different.  But they're picking and choosing.

[kater]

I completely agree.  That's the problem; if you enforce half of the Constitution, you destroy the good that the Founders were trying to do. 

[Russell Kanning]

So then we can support Lauren and the Kelo 7

[JonM]

So then we can support Lauren and the Kelo 7

Nobody is stopping you Russell.