Eminet Domain even for public use does not square with libertarian ideas. As far as the constitution goes just compensation may be the point along with your right of due process which would include the right of a fully informed jury before life liberty or property are taking from you. What is just compensation, surely it is not what they are willing to pay for it and how can market value alone be just compensation in all cases? If the government loses it cases before a jury should the government have the right to appeal? I don't think so because it is like the pleading of the king, of course the defedent/ the property owner should have a right to appeal if he loses before a jury and take it up as far as it can go, the government should have to compensate the land owner for his legal fees to. If neighbors think they have a just claim against one of their neighbors land holding it probally would pay for them to sue the landowner where they should have the right of appeal if they lose before a jury.--- In [email protected], "Victor Bozzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All, > > Can someone please explain to me how allowing Government to forcibly taking land for 'public' use squares > with the NAP that I here Libertarians supporting and I am relating this back to the discussion with the Police in Houston wanting to put cameras in Public places which is nothing more than forcibly taken land but seems ignored in the whole discussion as to whether the placing of cameras on public property is acceptable or not. > > I realize that the Constitution 'allows' for the forcible taking of land (and please don't belabor me with the just compensation part as this is irrelevant when faced with the choice of giving up your land or undergoing an expensive legal battle). > > Nonetheless when Governments forcibly take private property they are in violation of the NAP and certainly in violation of the spirit of the Constitution which was designed (no Forcible Government can protect you but I digress) to protect people's rights and foremost their property rights. > > Any thoughts on this? > > As far as I can tell the Non Aggression Principle is Non Existent for most Libertarians. > > In Liberty, > > Vic > > "Anarcho-capitalism is a view that regards all forms of the state as unnecessary and harmful, particularly in matters of justice and self-defense, while being highly supportive of private property. It synthesizes certain ideas from the tradition of classical liberalism (see libertarianism) and arguably from individualist anarchism as well. It opposes "traditional" anarchism on the issue of private property; while anarchists such as libertarian socialists and individualist anarchists reject all property beyond personal possessions as a form of authority, anarcho-capitalism embraces the established forms of property as an element of liberty."--Anarcho- capitalism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
