Eminent Domain

[pusher robot]

"Eminent domain" is the power of the government to essentially force landowners to sell their property. It is used when specific plots that are necessary for public works like roads, rails, and airports are occupied by people who refuse to sell voluntarily.

Now, there is no clear analogue that I can see in a communist or anarchist society. For one, people would not actually own the land, or even necessarily the things on it. For another, there may not be any bureaucratic authority to make or enforce such decisions. Finally, there is no mechanism for determining a "fair" value without free market pricing.

On the other hand, I think it would be safe to assume that even if they don't own the land, they would still grow attached to it. You grow up in a certain place, you get comfortable in it. Maybe you particularly like the local environment, or your neighbors. You could spend much of your life improving the land and the things on it. There may be great sentimental value associated with the land. In any case, let us assume that a group of people living in a certain area like it very much and do not want to move.

Unfortunately, the planning committee for their region has determined that their location is the only suitable site for a major airport deemed necessary and desirable by 90% of the community.

Under a pure or anarcho-capitalist system, eminent domain is not available, and the community would have to pay whatever price the owners demanded, even if it was exorbitant, or not have an airport.

Under a bureaucratic capitalist system like the U.S., the bureaucracy could compel them to move but would have to compensate them the fair value of their property.

I am wondering what the communist or anarchist system would do.
0. What prerogatives, if any, would people have to remain in the place that they live?
1. Who would have the authority to make the decision that these people must be moved, if anyone?
2. Who would have the power of force to compel them to move, if anyone?
3. How would appropriate compensation, if any, be determined?
4. Who would provide the compensation, if any?

EDIT:
I also mean to include:
5. What, if any, are would be legitimate reasons for compelling someone to move?

[Demogorgon]

You are asking a difficult question, because you are asking for details on how a society that does not yet exist would finction on specific matters. It is almost impossible to speculate here because we simply do not know exactly what such a society will look like.

At best I can only give a general answer to your question and that is, at times, eminent domain is a necesary evil. Also you do not need to use market value to determine compensation. Countries like the US use that method, but it is not universal. International standards simply say compensation should be "adequate" and the definition of adequate left open to interpretation.

You add a spanner to the works by pointing out that people have sentimental attachment to where they live. And that is a problem that is almost impossible to sort out under any system, because you cannot factor that into compensation. In the US or Britain currently, you will be paid market value for your property, but that will not cover the fact you didn't want to sell it in the first place. Similarly a Communist society could potentially choose to replace the land, meeting the economic loss sustained, but again that wouldn't compensate for the fact that it isn't the land people have grown attached to. Maybe you could try compensating with slightly better land in return. There probably isn't any good answer though.

That is the problem with these necessary evils. You can't find a perfect answer.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:04 pm
You are asking a difficult question, because you are asking for details on how a society that does not yet exist would finction on specific matters. It is almost impossible to speculate here because we simply do not know exactly what such a society will look like.

At best I can only give a general answer to your question and that is, at times, eminent domain is a necesary evil. Also you do not need to use market value to determine compensation. Countries like the US use that method, but it is not universal. International standards simply say compensation should be "adequate" and the definition of adequate left open to interpretation.

You add a spanner to the works by pointing out that people have sentimental attachment to where they live. And that is a problem that is almost impossible to sort out under any system, because you cannot factor that into compensation. In the US or Britain currently, you will be paid market value for your property, but that will not cover the fact you didn't want to sell it in the first place. Similarly a Communist society could potentially choose to replace the land, meeting the economic loss sustained, but again that wouldn't compensate for the fact that it isn't the land people have grown attached to. Maybe you could try compensating with slightly better land in return. There probably isn't any good answer though.

That is the problem with these necessary evils. You can't find a perfect answer.
I appreciate your response. Of course I acknowledge there will always be a necessary balance between the individual and the community.

I cannot, however, fathom supporting a social order where you quite clearly have no idea whatsoever how that balancing would occur. You are apparently willing to accept that it will work better than the existing system on blind faith. I however am not.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 03:13 pm

I appreciate your response. Of course I acknowledge there will always be a necessary balance between the individual and the community.

I cannot, however, fathom supporting a social order where you quite clearly have no idea whatsoever how that balancing would occur. You are apparently willing to accept that it will work better than the existing system on blind faith. I however am not.
I am not blindly accepting that such matters will automaticall be resolved better than they currently are. I don't think it is fair for you to claim that because I don't have a solid answer to one question that I have no idea how anything can be dealt with.

The trouble is that nobody really knows what a future society will look like. You can talk about it in general terms, but not in specific terms. And also you have to take into account regional diversity. If someone were to ask how "capitalism" deals with eminent domain, you would be unable to answer unless they were more specific as different places have different means of dealing with it.

Persoanlly I think such matters should be dealt with democratically and that nobody should have their home taken from them without being provided with another, bbut I recognise that that is a very vague answer. The simple fact is that I cannot give you a specific answer without knowing the specifics of how such a societies beaureacracy will function.

[apathy maybe]

It does of course depend on what sort of "anarchy" you have.

If you have an individualist type, then fuck the community, in that sort of anarchistic system, it is sorta like "anarcho"-capitalism in that the community can't force a person off a piece of land that they are using.

If you have more of a communist system, then it is different. For one thing, people might not become so attached to a bit of land, as they have more of an attachment to the community. Also, they wouldn't work on the land on their own, necessarily, as they would have others working with them.

Of course, in the end, it comes down to, what sort of society are we looking at? One the focuses more on the individual (such as individualistic anarchism)? or the community (some sorts of communism)?

Personally, I think it would depend on what the local community wanted in most situations. And I think that in most cases the local (and I mean local, not regional or city) community would back the user of the land. In which case, that airport or road would have to be built some where else.

Of course, it is all hypothetical.

[pusher robot]

Of course, in the end, it comes down to, what sort of society are we looking at? One the focuses more on the individual (such as individualistic anarchism)? or the community (some sorts of communism)?

Feel free to theorize on whatever you would consider the ideal society.


In which case, that airport or road would have to be built some where else.

I have stipulated for this question that it cannot be built elsewhere - or, if you wish, anywhere suitable for building it, you will have the same problem.

[JazzRemington]

If party A needs to build something either using or on party B's property, but either B does not want A to build using B's property and/or A is unwilling or unable to build elsewhere, then there is no solution to this problem, except if they are willing to go to a third party and abide by his or her resolution or A or B use force.

There is no system that can get around this.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:06 pm
If party A needs to build something either using or on party B's property, but either B does not want A to build using B's property and/or A is unwilling or unable to build elsewhere, then there is no solution to this problem, except if they are willing to go to a third party and abide by his or her resolution or A or B use force.

There is no system that can get around this.
Okay...but your response is presupposing the existence of "property" and property rights, is it not?

Why would this apply to a society with no privately owned property and no property rights?

[RevSouth]

I would think that this is the sort of thing that could be decided in a community forum (of the physical variety). Some sort of town, city, settlement meeting where the individual(s) could make their plea to the community at large, give their personal reasoning as to why they want to stay there, try and pull a few heartstrings. But ultimately, if the alternative is to destroy valuable farmland, or to bulldoze an apartment complex where many more people live, or whatever, the people would decide how the problem was dealt with.

That is just how it would work in my vision of an ideal society. So there.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 03, 2007 04:02 am--> (pusher robot @ August 03, 2007 04:02 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 06:06 pm
If party A needs to build something either using or on party B's property, but either B does not want A to build using B's property and/or A is unwilling or unable to build elsewhere, then there is no solution to this problem, except if they are willing to go to a third party and abide by his or her resolution or A or B use force.

There is no system that can get around this.
Okay...but your response is presupposing the existence of "property" and property rights, is it not?

Why would this apply to a society with no privately owned property and no property rights? [/b]
You can have a system of land occupancy that doesn't include any conception of ownership or property and still have that situation being the case.


If a person is using and occupying land or a building or whatever, and another person has a desire to use that, then the only way to force that person off (if they have no desire to leave and refuses to leave), is well to use force.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by pusher robot+August 02, 2007 09:02 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 02, 2007 09:02 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 06:06 pm
If party A needs to build something either using or on party B's property, but either B does not want A to build using B's property and/or A is unwilling or unable to build elsewhere, then there is no solution to this problem, except if they are willing to go to a third party and abide by his or her resolution or A or B use force.

There is no system that can get around this.
Okay...but your response is presupposing the existence of "property" and property rights, is it not?

Why would this apply to a society with no privately owned property and no property rights? [/b]
It could. Suppose a group of people (A) are living in an area and another group (B) finds that something B (or B and another other group or groups) wants (a highway, railway, road, etc.) needs to be built where A is, they would have to convince A to either move or allow whatever is needed to be built where A is..

As I said before, if neither A or B wants to concede or are willing to go to a third party, then there is no solution so as to please A and B equally.

[Publius]

0. What prerogatives, if any, would people have to remain in the place that they live?

If they liked living there, they might want to stay.



1. Who would have the authority to make the decision that these people must be moved, if anyone?

Probably the community as a whole, sense the land in the community belongs to the community.



2. Who would have the power of force to compel them to move, if anyone?

The community.



3. How would appropriate compensation, if any, be determined?

By the community.



4. Who would provide the compensation, if any?

The government.

Oh, no, the community.



EDIT:
I also mean to include:
5. What, if any, are would be legitimate reasons for compelling someone to move?

If the community thought it necessary.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:18 pm


3. How would appropriate compensation, if any, be determined?

By the community.



4. Who would provide the compensation, if any?

The government.

Oh, no, the community.
Isn't there a moral hazard in allowing the community to set the compensation as well as having to provide the compensation? Why wouldn't they just set compensation to zero to avoid having to divert resources from something else?




EDIT:
I also mean to include:
5. What, if any, are would be legitimate reasons for compelling someone to move?

If the community thought it necessary.

What if the community merely found it convenient? With authoritarian power, what checks or balances exist for the minority?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 12:57 am
Isn't there a moral hazard in allowing the community to set the compensation as well as having to provide the compensation? Why wouldn't they just set compensation to zero to avoid having to divert resources from something else?

That is a problem you will find in any system. I mean right now, the Governemnt decides and the Government compensates. Protection is provided through the Government having to follow pre-existing rules and not simply coming up with compensation off the top of its head. Similarly I believe that such an issue as this, or indeed most issues under socialism could not work unless the community has created a pre-existing set of rules for dealing with such matters.

[Publius]

Isn't there a moral hazard in allowing the community to set the compensation as well as having to provide the compensation?

No, because the land is the community's. It doesn't make sense that an individual can own land.


Why wouldn't they just set compensation to zero to avoid having to divert resources from something else?

One, the person losing the land would be a member of the community, not some outsider. So it would be impossible, by definition, for the community not give resources to the community, and likewise, it would be impossible for the community to take land that didn't belong to it, that say, belonged to a different community.



What if the community merely found it convenient?

It's ultimately the community's land, and you are part of the community.


With authoritarian power, what checks or balances exist for the minority?

The fact that they are ultimately the same thing is the check. A person in the majority on one issue might not be on another. So that alone acts as a balance.

[pusher robot]

I mean right now, the Governemnt decides and the Government compensates.

No, that's incorrect. The level is determined by assessing the free-market value. The determination of the market is considered binding.


It's ultimately the community's land, and you are part of the community.

What are you saying? That it's impossible to have private interests in conflict with the community interests? Or are you simply denying that personal interests have any relevance whatsoever?

[Marsella]

I'm not sure where you live, but in Australia the government can aquire land via Paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution which creates a right to just compensation for assets taken by the Commonwealth.

It may be argued that the market value is not a just compensatory amount - especially where the market demand had dropped or where the land hold certain emotional sentamentalism or where moving would cause inconvienance. In other words, the market value does not categorically determine the compensation amount.

Although I haven't studied constitutional law, I don't think the government ever loses ownership of land - they merely grant a fee simple. Again, it depends on where you live.

[pusher robot]

Your paragraph 51 mirrors the text of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution, which states in part, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"Just" has been determined by both Congress and Courts to be the fair market value, thus that rule has constitutional law of force.


It may be argued that the market value is not a just compensatory amount - especially where the market demand had dropped or where the land hold certain emotional sentamentalism or where moving would cause inconvienance. In other words, the market value does not categorically determine the compensation amount.

That certainly could be argued - and in fact, just compensation in the US usually includes relocation costs, especially for businesses - but I hope you would agree that whatever level is just, there ought to be some way of actually determining what that level is. The method in capitalist countries is easily objectively determined - measure the price in a free market. But I have no idea at all what the communist or anarchist method for making this determination would be, and it doesn't seem like anybody else does either.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 04:46 pm
I am wondering what the communist or anarchist system would do.
0. What prerogatives, if any, would people have to remain in the place that they live?
1. Who would have the authority to make the decision that these people must be moved, if anyone?
2. Who would have the power of force to compel them to move, if anyone?
3. How would appropriate compensation, if any, be determined?
4. Who would provide the compensation, if any?

EDIT:
I also mean to include:
5. What, if any, are would be legitimate reasons for compelling someone to move?
Due to the democratic nature of communist and anarchist societies, the answer to all those questions is probably that it will depend from community to community. Each community or administrative unit - or whatever they are called - will sort out its approach to eminent domain based on the preferences of the people who live there.

To clarify: I am not saying that the community will necessarily vote in order to decide what to do with a plot of land that is required for some public use. I am saying that, before any such situation arises, the community will vote to decide what to do in the event that eminent domain becomes an issue. This has the advantage that people cannot know in advance which particular individuals may be required to sacrifice their favourite land for the community. It's the same principle as the "veil of ignorance" in the Rawlsian social contract.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:46 pm
I am wondering what the communist or anarchist system would do.
0. What prerogatives, if any, would people have to remain in the place that they live?
1. Who would have the authority to make the decision that these people must be moved, if anyone?
2. Who would have the power of force to compel them to move, if anyone?
3. How would appropriate compensation, if any, be determined?
4. Who would provide the compensation, if any?

EDIT:
I also mean to include:
5. What, if any, are would be legitimate reasons for compelling someone to move?
The concepts of communist society in general, that is, respect for communal rather than singularly individual interests, has little concern with eminent domain. The reason is that all the land is considered "possession" of all people.

Clearly, there will be cases where similar issues to those that eminent domain solves arise... someone's house may be in the way of a major industrial interest of the people, namely a road, oil deposits or whatever. In cases where the individual is simply trying to maintain their own basic conditions - holding on to farmland, a house, even recreational land near their house - I would side with the individual, even if that means traffic may be congested, oil supplies may dwindle more quickly.

If a communal society works well, however, most people would be willing to let their house or land go if it must. The thing is that communes ask what each person is concerned with - people are associated.

If a road plan takes out a large number of houses, people, being integrated into the economic and political process, will not only ask why, but their society will ask them what to do. So people would decide to set up committees to plan roads more effectively in the human interest, which is of course not to take people's houses out. There will always be problems; if a road takes out the fewest houses with plan A but that person says "no," then that plan should not be followed.

If many people must sacrifice for the interests of one individual, that will suffice because the others would also have to agree to move. This is clearly imperfect, and it is possible that the individual may be overrun by the people, but nobody said communal society was perfect anyways. But it's a hell of a lot better than a society in which taxes bear down on the poor and eminent domain is acted upon quietly in the interests of Capital rather than human interests.

Obviously, in the case of "recreational land," the issue of community versus the individual is very fluid... In such cases, I can only offer that whatever organization of land boundaries that may arise would constitute the authority of who has a right to what... proximity to one's house would offer more right to say "no" to development, in any case. Land - boundaries may not constitute the basic level of jurisdiction; it could be worker - collectives or collectivised industrial property - in any case, communal society would find interest in the whole, and as such if one part of the collective pains than the whole is also in pain.

To answer your questions, if this hasn't been sufficient:

1. The commune would serve as the basis for discussion and decision - making, but that doesn't mean it is democratic; as in the case above where the individual chooses to keep his or her house, it can be democratic if the peopel choose force, which would be bad, but so long as the interests of the individuals are considered and respected as much as possible, the end result - that is, the decision - should, and in a really communist society would rest with the people in general.

2. If one was compelled to move, it should only be by the others in the collective.

3. Comensation would be equivalent to whatever was taken from their conditions.. if it was a park that needed to be razed for a highway then the commune should build another park close by. If it was a house, living conditions should be provided. If a person still has access to a house after they lose one, they don't need one so no compensation is necessary - if the people decide that the park was not necessary, then another one shouldn't be built.

4. The people in the individual's collective, if that is viable... if it requires more compensatory efforts than the local population cna give, than other collectives would help out through whatever system was in place for that - emergency labor forces, emergency food or housing stock...

5. The interests of the commune. If you mean compel as in force, as I assumed in #2, than I don't think any reason goes above an individual's right to live on their own land, but I don't think that national committees should decide these matters; I think that only the local community should ever go that far, because only the local community can really know the individual beyond their basic humanness to decide what is worth more: the person's right to be stubborn or the people's need / interests for whatever use for which the land is deemed necessary.

[pusher robot]

Interesting answers, thanks for replying.