Re: Fwd: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Ummm... ok, but that doesn't answer the question. Agreed that individual
ownership and transferability of real property is important in a liberal
democracy. But as we also seem to agree, "ownership" of real property in a
constitutional democracy is never absolute; it is limited by the eminent
domain rights of the sovereign, by the police powers of the state (e.g.,
land use laws restricting pornography stores in residential neighborhoods),
and by the constitutional and common law rights of others (e.g., laws
against nuisance, provisions for easements, adverse possession). I argue
that, contra *Lochner*, these limitations can include democratically enacted
economic regulation -- e.g., labor and environmental laws. I also argue
that these limitations can include some level of taxing authority to provide
for the general welfare. What is the principled distinction between these
agreed limits on ownership of real property and limits involving economic
regulation or the taxing authority?

On Jan 22, 2008 1:42 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At 01:24 PM 1/22/2008, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Janice,
>
> 1. how do you define what you mean by "my" resources given your
> distinction between sovereignty and ownership?
>
>
> @ Note that word, "steal"???
>
> Eminent Domain laws were put into place to prohibit government entities
> from taking *privately owned land* for public use (like roads, bridges,
> etc.) without JUST compensation.
>
> Real Estate _IS_ a "bundle of rights" backed up and protected by the
> Constitution.... which is built on The Declaration of Independence. Like it
> or lump it.
>
> ~ Janice
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 1:14 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote:
> At 01:03 PM 1/22/2008, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Moreover, contrary to the extremist libertarian rhetoric, the scope of
> potential property rights is not summed up by the poles of absolute
> individual ownership vs. absolute state ownership.
>
>
> @ To repeat what I wrote to Burgy:
>
>
> You're wanting to talk about oranges when I'm talking about apples.
>
> Ownership (apples) doesn't necessarily equate with sovereignty (oranges).
> If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership.
>
> Stop arguing about the bottom line. I will help the poor . You will help
> the poor. But don't attempt to steal from me what's mine so that you can
> use my resources to help the poor.
>
> Got it?
>
> ~ Janice
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 22 14:01:16 2008