Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site well.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!rab
From: rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Pollution (Eminent Domain)
Message-ID: <720@well.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 08:22:13 EST
Article-I.D.: well.720
Posted: Sun Mar  2 08:22:13 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Mar-86 19:01:13 EST
References: <421@umich.UUCP> <28200611@inmet.UUCP> <12032@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 43

<BUG?!>

In article <12032@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
> 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?

  It may be that others may benefit if you are forced to make it
available, but this is not a morally acceptable reason for so forcing
you.  The loss of a *potential* benefit is no loss at all.

> Or suppose I have a natural monopoly on the production of some

  There is no such thing as a natural monopoly.  Monopolies only
persist when enforced by government.

>                (2) an equivalent problem occurs if I seek to form
> a monopoly and demand unreasonable profits.  Government intervention
> becomes necessary (or at least desirable) in both of these situations.

  If you demand unreasonable profits (aside: define unreasonable. prove
the reasonableness of your definition) then I can open up a competing
business making smaller profits and thereby serve the public better.
The only thing you can do to stop me (in a free market) is to lower
your prices.  Clearly, this also serves the 'public interest'.


-- 
       Robert Bickford     (rab@well.uucp)
================================================
|  I doubt if these are even my own opinions.  |
================================================