Fair Market Value

By -
Some fogged up fellow thinks eminent domain seizures involve the payment of "fair market value" to the person whose property was taken. What rubbish. There is no meaning whatsoever to "fair market value" except what someone will willingly exchange, and eminent domain is only used when the owner is not willing to sell at the state's price, i.e., the seizee never gets fair market value.

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:43 PM

    It looks like in Chiacgo they don't even need eminent domain to screw over un-"connected" business owners:

    http://www.menrohm.com/2005/07/in-chicago-you-dont-need-eminent.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:59 PM

    How very true, Mr. Callahan! You wouldn't happen to know any of those that sanctified state seizures from the CT St Supreme Court in years past, would ya?

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah3:42 AM

    No, I never followed the CT Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:51 PM

    Even with a relative as Head Cheese...? Has he changed his tune after f*ing so many?

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah6:07 AM

    I suspected that Anonymous was refering to the fact that my uncle was Chief Justice of the CT Supreme Court. But, believe it or not, I never paid much attention to his career or legal views -- the only opinion of his I can recall was that a homeless person living under a bridge did not have the same rights in regards to police searches of his belongings as did someone in a dwelling he owned or rented.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous7:14 AM

    Anonymous person was only hoping to get some insight into the Connecticut Legal Mind, since CT has been one of the most important battleground states for property rights.

    Sadly, I fear the expropriators will be running amock. Kids, get out there and study urban planning, you might become the next Robert Moses!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more