Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Pollution (Eminent Domain)
Message-ID: <1411@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 09:33:18 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1411
Posted: Wed Feb 26 09:33:18 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 20:55:24 EST
References: <421@umich.UUCP> <28200611@inmet.UUCP> <12032@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 57

> In article <28200611@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> >..........
> >Both conditions are necessary.
> >E.g., if I propose to buy your  car  and  you  refuse,  no  court
> >should  be  able  to appoint a price at which you *have* to sell.
> >Thus, eminent domain is morally unjustifiable.
> 
>    When you use words like "should," it seems you take on the
> responsibility to justify what you say, and not just present it
> as a fact.  It seems to me that there are many examples where it
> is in the public interest to do precisely what you refer to above.
>    For example, suppose I patent an invention and then refuse to
> allow it to be used.  Is it not in the public interest to require
> that I make my invention available to others at a reasonable price?

      The fact that something would be in the public interest is far
from sufficient justification for the government to 'require' anything.
Suppose the invention above allowed the inventor to produce, say, steel,
at a fraction of the normal production costs of his competitors.  I'm
sure the competitors would be happy to agree with you, that this unsharing
inventor should have to share his invention with them.  Would this
*really* be in the public interest? It certainly would drive down the
cost of steel, and steel using products, as the inventor could otherwise
charge only slightly less than his competitors.  What other effects could
we expect to see?  Other inventors emigrating to more reasonable countries,
rather than let their inventions be taken from them by force here?  A
general loss of pride as people realize that the country they live in isn't
really 'free'?  These hidden costs are not negligible.

>    It seems that *you* are the one who has said that the individual,
> not the courts, decides the cost.  Agreed the position as stated is
> absurd, but if we modify it so that the cost is decided by the courts
> (what I will call the "true cost") then it seems perfectly correct.

     If you accidentally wreck my car, I'm perfectly willing to let the
courts decide on how much compensation you should give me.  If you want
to contract to wreck my car every week, I want to be able to decide how
much to charge you myself, godammit!  BTW, using the term 'true cost'
for the number the fallible court comes up with is a pretty misleading form
of argument.  

>    You have to be careful here.  Suppose we postulate the existence
> of a parasitic life form, which cannot exist without harming another
> individual.  My position would be that its continued existence would
> be dependent on its willingness and ability to pay the cost (the true
> cost, not whatever may be asked) to the host of its existence.

      Seems consistant with your position.  Makes me want to barf.  Doesn't
matter what the 'host' (more accurately, victim) wants?  If the court
decides that a meal for Dracula is worth $100,000 to the slightly drained
hosts, you'd be willing to help hold them down, huh?  Even if they're 
screaming: 'No!  Not for any amount of money!'
> 
>    -- David desJardins
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j