[Travis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

But actually, I was talking about the way things are.

Then your response to my prescriptive claim was irrelevant.

Originally Posted by GORP006

When that collection of people includes the person from whom the property is taken, then it sorta changes things a bit.

(A) Show biblically how it “sorta changes things a bit.”

(B) The person whose property is being confiscated is not consenting. Therefore, I assume you are saying that they are included because we are a democracy and they are somehow part of the government, etc. If this is the case, notice that once again your principle would prove far too much. If a person’s being a citizen in a democracy is as good enough as having their consent, then on what basis could people complain if murder was made permissible by popular vote?

Originally Posted by GORP006

I accept that the decisions made by government do not generally agree with the morals of all parties affected. However, the majority of government decisions conform to the morals of the majority of the people, or at least the majority of the voting population. This isn’t always the case of course, as can be seen by many polls in the recent years. But for the most part, the layout of our system is such that the majority’s morals are represented. If they are not, the leaders are removed from office.

Relevance to my claim that eminent domain violates the one, universal set of morals (i.e., God’s)?

Originally Posted by GORP006

You’re misinterpreting my argument. I don’t argue that anything a local government does is right.

No, it’s called a reductio ad absurdum (look it up). That’s a type of argument which assumes something it is intended to disprove (in this case, your principle) and deduces from it an unacceptable or contradictory conclusion. I’ve shown that your principle, if applied consistently, would justify any action by the local government. To say that you didn’t mean it that way is to miss the point. I know that’s not what you want, but that’s what your position entails. Therefore, you should relinquish that position.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I argue that anything a local government does is either the will of the people, or the legislators will be removed from office. Maybe I’m an optimist when it comes to government in my assumption that the voters are aware of the issues and where the candidates stand. I know that’s not always the case. But the more local the government, the more informed the voters generally are. So if the local government commits a gross breach of the trust between voters and representatives, then they will be removed from the government. The Local government also has the ability to run referendums very easily.

Take, for example, a smoking ban. If a city wishes to ban smoking in restaurants, the city generally runs a referendum to allow the citizens to give their opinion. Based on the results of the referendum, the council will pass or not pass the ban. There are those who feel it is wrong to ban smoking, whether for moral or economic reasons. But since the majority want to ban smoking, they ban smoking.

What about having a majority makes something right? If murder was legalized by popular vote, would it not still be wrong?

Originally Posted by GORP006

This is how local government works in America. As long as we maintain our representative democracy form of government, the city will continue to operate in this manner. Bringing up extreme situations does not make your argument stronger.

Actually it does. It demonstrates that there’s something wrong with your principle.

Originally Posted by GORP006

City governments are still subject to state and federal and in some cases county laws. The city cannot generally make something legal that is illegal in the state or country. So Murder, forced abortion, and other extreme examples you can think of are not good examples, and your argument fails.

Allow me to add two additional clauses to your depiction of my argument, because yours wasn’t totally accurate. “If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree.” So, The city wants to make a law forcing abortion? If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree. Want to make random murder legal? If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree. Want to outlaw smoking in all public eating establishments? If there is not an existing state or federal law and the majority is in favor of this law; citizens must abide by the laws of the city; you can leave if you disagree.

So if the state and federal government legalized those things would it then be okay?

Originally Posted by GORP006

That’s how it works in America.

Such description isn’t relevant to prescriptive claims.

[GORP006]

Originally Posted by Travis

Then your response to my prescriptive claim was irrelevant.

(A) Show biblically how it “sorta changes things a bit.”

(B) The person whose property is being confiscated is not consenting. Therefore, I assume you are saying that they are included because we are a democracy and they are somehow part of the government, etc. If this is the case, notice that once again your principle would prove far too much. If a person’s being a citizen in a democracy is as good enough as having their consent, then on what basis could people complain if murder was made permissible by popular vote?

Relevance to my claim that eminent domain violates the one, universal set of morals (i.e., God’s)?

No, it’s called a reductio ad absurdum (look it up). That’s a type of argument which assumes something it is intended to disprove (in this case, your principle) and deduces from it an unacceptable or contradictory conclusion. I’ve shown that your principle, if applied consistently, would justify any action by the local government. To say that you didn’t mean it that way is to miss the point. I know that’s not what you want, but that’s what your position entails. Therefore, you should relinquish that position.

What about having a majority makes something right? If murder was legalized by popular vote, would it not still be wrong?

Actually it does. It demonstrates that there’s something wrong with your principle.

So if the state and federal government legalized those things would it then be okay?

Such description isn’t relevant to prescriptive claims.

Ok Travis, I'll respond once more to your line of debate, and I'm going to leave it at that. I know we'll never agree on this, because I think our ideals of government are diametrically opposed, and by default you will almost always disagree with whatever I feel is right for the government.

First, I am going to cite one piece of scripture, I would continue to look more, but I just don't think it's worth my time to find proof for my position, although I'm almost certain I could find more. My scripture is from Acts, chapter 2, verses 44 and 45. "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their posessions and goods they gave to anyone as he had need." Now if you can honestly tell me that there is no story in the Bible where King David, or Solomon, or some other agent of the Government took the land of another for use by the government, then I will grant that Eminent Domain is mostly un-biblical. I don't know the ins and outs of the Bible as well as you, admittedly, and like I said, I don't want to try to find it.

Let's be consistent here...When you and I had a discussion in the past about the use of Biblical Law in formation of the US government, you rejected, wholesale, my cause/effect arguments on the grounds that they were extreme, and unproven. Now you are making the same argument that my position of Majority rule would allow for legalized murder. Let's be consistent here.

Now in regards to the legalizing of Murder, Wars can be approved by majority vote in Congress. Is that different from Murder? Yet, you allow that as acceptable? The dealth penalty has been approved by majority vote, but that's murder too...acceptable? If you are going to be consistent, we really should push for the outlawing of wars of aggression (Iraq), and the Death Penalty should be abolished, afterall, Jesus came to change the rules, one of which was "Eye for an Eye"

But the fact is that the majority of representatives could not make murder legal, even at the state and federal level without amending the constitution to eliminate the right to life. If an amendment passed the house and senate, and was approved by the states, then it would go into the books, and would be made law. Do I think this will happen? absolutely not. However, since the constitution allows eminent domain to happen, then I think that is acceptable.

If you want to get into arguments about oughts rather than constitutional issues, that's fine, but I am not going to get into that. I think the the government ought to follow the guidelines set up in the constitution. There are ways to amend that document, and those can be used if we want to implement biblical law. Since those amendments have not been written, we ought to stick to what has been written for the time being.

Is it right for the local government to seize property for economic development? probably not...But is it legal? Yes it is. Is it in accordance with the constitution? Absolutely. Can people stop it? Sure can, get those petitions signed and pass that referendum, and you're on your way to eminent domain free city. In the meantime, if you're not willing to go to that effort to change the way things are run, then you have to live with the status quo.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

First, I am going to cite one piece of scripture, I would continue to look more, but I just don't think it's worth my time to find proof for my position, although I'm almost certain I could find more. My scripture is from Acts, chapter 2, verses 44 and 45. "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their posessions and goods they gave to anyone as he had need."

This is within the church and was voluntary (notice the words “selling” and “giving”; they chose to do this and did it of their own accord). It has no relevance to the civil state and certainly does not support the state’s use of compulsion to take property from citizens without their consent.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Now if you can honestly tell me that there is no story in the Bible where King David, or Solomon, or some other agent of the Government took the land of another for use by the government, then I will grant that Eminent Domain is mostly un-biblical.

I’m not aware of one, but feel free to point one out.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Let's be consistent here...When you and I had a discussion in the past about the use of Biblical Law in formation of the US government, you rejected, wholesale, my cause/effect arguments on the grounds that they were extreme, and unproven. Now you are making the same argument that my position of Majority rule would allow for legalized murder. Let's be consistent here.

First, I’m not sure what you mean by your “cause/effect arguments.” Second, I am not talking about cause and effect at all, but rather I am talking about what a principle logically entails in theory.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Now in regards to the legalizing of Murder, Wars can be approved by majority vote in Congress. Is that different from Murder?

It depends on the war. Some wars are just according to God, some are not. We can get into just war theory more if you’d like.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Yet, you allow that as acceptable?

If the particular war does not violate the law of God, then I have no problem with it. If it does, then I do not allow it as acceptable.

Originally Posted by GORP006

The dealth penalty has been approved by majority vote, but that's murder too...acceptable?

I support capital punishment because God Almighty Himself explicitly instituted it in Scripture, not because a lot of people in the US think it’s okay.

Originally Posted by GORP006

If you are going to be consistent, we really should push for the outlawing of wars of aggression (Iraq), and the Death Penalty should be abolished, afterall, Jesus came to change the rules, one of which was "Eye for an Eye"

I agree that wars of aggression should be outlawed. And I think the Iraq war was morally wrong.

I do not believe Jesus nor any other apostle ever says anything to abolish the death penalty, however. But this is another large subject. I’d be happy to talk about it further, though.

Originally Posted by GORP006

But the fact is that the majority of representatives could not make murder legal

That’s not relevant. We’re talking about the logical implications of your principle.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I think the the government ought to follow the guidelines set up in the constitution. There are ways to amend that document, and those can be used if we want to implement biblical law. Since those amendments have not been written, we ought to stick to what has been written for the time being.

I agree, and believe that the Constitution should be amended in order to establish a Christian theonomic republic.

[AudioVisions]

Actually the homeowners in London Connecticut, and all homeowners facing eminent domain property seizures, still have one more recourse that IS covered in the US Constitution- the right to have this issue resolved by a jury of their peers (peers meaning other residential homeowners)

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Article [VII.] of the Amendments to the Constitution states:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I would assume their homes and property are worth more than $20.00;
So if the City of London Connecticut has not allowed these homeowners to have the dispute resolved by a jury of their peers then they have violated those citizens Constitutional rights.

Judges are not a jury of peers, since they are government officals.

[loriborealis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

This is not an equivalent argument. Your wedding ring is personal property, not real property. By choosing to purchase property inside a city, you are choosing the rules of that city too. You are choosing to pay taxes to that city, and you have the right to elect representatives to that city’s council. Your wedding ring is different…very different. Think on a smaller scale, such as a condominium property. If one unit owner wanted to paint the outside of their unit pink, the rest of the owners can stop that person from doing so. This is the reason that condos set up rules that you agree to follow when you buy a condo in that property. Cities work in a similar manner, just on a much larger scale.

I used a wedding ring as an example of something that does not have a dollar value. A family home to many people has no dollar value either. And whoever made the comment that "a couple million over market value sound just to me", give me a break. Like the gov't's gonna pay you that much for your home. Not gonna happen.

At any rate, painting a condo unit pink and tearing down a home to built an EZMart are not the same thing.

These are all the emotional arguments, but don’t line up with constitutional law. For starters, this isn’t an argument about wal-mart. Wal-Mart is being used as an example, because people hate Wal-Mart. This is a discussion about whether a city can use its power of eminent domain for economic development.

I use an emotional argument because a person's property is an emotional subject. It wouldn't stand up in the Supreme Court, but I'm not trying to defend a court argument. I'm just saying that it's wrong. As far as I see it, eminent domain is theft. I can't just take someone's car without their consent, but leave a couple grand in their hand as "just compensation" and get away with it. That's all I'm saying. The government shouldn't have that right either, at least not when safety and security have absolutely no bearing on the situation. (If my house is built on a volcano and all the heat and activity my house is causing it is disrupting it and it's gonna blow if we don't move, that's a different subject. Note: I don't have a clue about volcanoes. )

Good call, bring on socialism!

I think you were being sarcastic, but there's no need to be. Britain is a socialist country and to be honest, they've got a lot more good things going for them than America. Note: Socialism=/=Communism. I have no problem (in general) with socialism.

[Dice]

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

hahahahaha

[Travis]

HAHAHA!! That would be such beautiful irony.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

In short, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme court just ruled that the government may take your propery under eminant domain in order to give it to private companies.

But don't worry, I'm sure there's no way that WalMart can buy your mayor [/sarcasam]

I love how "public use" now equals "private profits"

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by AudioVisions

Actually the homeowners in London Connecticut, and all homeowners facing eminent domain property seizures, still have one more recourse that IS covered in the US Constitution- the right to have this issue resolved by a jury of their peers (peers meaning other residential homeowners)

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Article [VII.] of the Amendments to the Constitution states:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I would assume their homes and property are worth more than $20.00;
So if the City of London Connecticut has not allowed these homeowners to have the dispute resolved by a jury of their peers then they have violated those citizens Constitutional rights.

Judges are not a jury of peers, since they are government officals.

I agree, I do believe though that $20 has been interpreted by a court case to mean a much higher amount, but not high enough to be more than the value of someone's property

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I suspect that the Judiciary is right... The constitution does not specifically forbid it, though I don't think it was the framer's intent. In this case, I believe the US congress should restrict the right by act of law.

I find it hard to believe that using eminent domain so that walmart can build a store is "public use". There is a difference between "public use" and "beneficial to the community"

Recally, it's not the place of the court to decide if somethign is right or wrong, only legal or illegal.

or the constitutionality of a law

Finally, there is simply the "forcing people to move for other people". Sometimes it simply needs to be done (Interstates needed to be built), but we are talking about instances where people are getting evicted to make way for other people who will pay more taxes (as is happening in the case that came before the court).

kinda reminds me of other forced relocations in the past.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I don't know. A few million dollars over market price sounds pretty just to me...

just is in the eye of the beholder, and no price would be just or fair to me if the Arkansas DOT decided to build a highway through the house that my grandfather built by himself. That house is priceless.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by GORP006

First, I am going to cite one piece of scripture, I would continue to look more, but I just don't think it's worth my time to find proof for my position, although I'm almost certain I could find more. My scripture is from Acts, chapter 2, verses 44 and 45. "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their posessions and goods they gave to anyone as he had need."

just because it was done a certain way in biblical times does not mean there is a biblical mandate to do so now.

Now if you can honestly tell me that there is no story in the Bible where King David, or Solomon, or some other agent of the Government took the land of another for use by the government, then I will grant that Eminent Domain is mostly un-biblical. I don't know the ins and outs of the Bible as well as you, admittedly, and like I said, I don't want to try to find it.

even if there was a story of King Saul taking a dude's land for government use, it doesn't make it right. There are lots of things documented in the bible that are sinful.

Now in regards to the legalizing of Murder, Wars can be approved by majority vote in Congress. Is that different from Murder? Yet, you allow that as acceptable? The dealth penalty has been approved by majority vote, but that's murder too...acceptable?

Romans 13 gives the governement the right to use the death penalty.

afterall, Jesus came to change the rules, one of which was "Eye for an Eye"

Jesus was talking about personal vengence, not justice being delivered through the God ordained governments.

However, since the constitution allows eminent domain to happen, then I think that is acceptable.

but only for public use, which is different from public welfare.

If you want to get into arguments about oughts rather than constitutional issues, that's fine, but I am not going to get into that. I think the the government ought to follow the guidelines set up in the constitution. There are ways to amend that document, and those can be used if we want to implement biblical law. Since those amendments have not been written, we ought to stick to what has been written for the time being.

Travis prefers to debate what ought to be done on a moral and biblical ground. there is nothing wrong with that. There is what is biblical and right in God's eyes. And there is what is constitutional in the courts' eyes. The two don't always agree

Is it right for the local government to seize property for economic development? probably not...But is it legal? Yes it is.

well it is now, after the US Supreme Court changed "public use" to "public use or welfare"

Is it in accordance with the constitution? Absolutely.

depends on who you ask. Officially, yes. In my eyes, no.
Can people stop it? Sure can, get those petitions signed and pass that referendum, and you're on your way to eminent domain free city. In the meantime, if you're not willing to go to that effort to change the way things are run, then you have to live with the status quo.[/QUOTE]doesn't mean he has to sit by quietly and accept the status quo.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Travis

HAHAHA!! That would be such beautiful irony.

Yes it would, I almost hope that it happens

[GORP006]

Originally Posted by Bryan

just because it was done a certain way in biblical times does not mean there is a biblical mandate to do so now.
even if there was a story of King Saul taking a dude's land for government use, it doesn't make it right. There are lots of things documented in the bible that are sinful.

Well, my point is that Travis's contention that all laws should be as they are in the Bible does not answer all questions. Essentially, I'm saying that a person could very likely find justification in the Bible for Eminent Domain.

Romans 13 gives the governement the right to use the death penalty.

I just read Romans 13, it says nothing about the Death penalty. The only remotely close thing I could find was "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Speaking of the One in Authority. It says he has the authority to bring punishment to the wrongdoer...but does it say that the punishment should be Death? Does it even say that the Punishment should be in accordance with Mosaic law, or any other Old Testament Law? Romans 13 gives the government the right to punish the wrongdoer, the means of that punishment is not mentioned at all, so I will revert to When Jesus told us not to follow the eye for an eye punishment.

Jesus was talking about personal vengence, not justice being delivered through the God ordained governments.

So are all governments ordained by God? What about the saudi Government? Or what about when the Taliban were in power? What about the Mullahs in Iran? The Chinese Communists? Kim Jong Il? Are they all ordained by God? I would submit that when Paul refers to those in Authority, he's not necessarily talking about the Government being ordained by God as much as the Church leaders, or the leaders of the local community of believers. If we are to believe that God ordained all rulers to be such, then Christians in Saudi Arabia would have to follow the rules of Saudi Arabia, which essentially mandate Islam.

Travis prefers to debate what ought to be done on a moral and biblical ground. there is nothing wrong with that. There is what is biblical and right in God's eyes. And there is what is constitutional in the courts' eyes. The two don't always agree

I am aware of Travis's style of debating...I disagree with Travis's style of Debating.

doesn't mean he has to sit by quietly and accept the status quo.

Bryan, go back and read the quote that you're responding to. What do I say? Do I say he has to sit by quietlly and accept the status quo? No, I say that he has the power to try to change things, and if he isn't willing to go to those efforts, then all he is doing is complaining.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GORP006

Well, my point is that Travis's contention that all laws should be as they are in the Bible does not answer all questions.

2 Tim. 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Essentially, I'm saying that a person could very likely find justification in the Bible for Eminent Domain.

Saying it's likely and showing it are two different things. Let's see it.

Originally Posted by GORP006

I just read Romans 13, it says nothing about the Death penalty.

(A) No one claimed otherwise. Romans 13 teaches that the civil government must administer God’s wrath. The way to know God’s wrath is to look at the rest of Scripture, which does indeed teach that the death penalty is not only permissible but is required for various crimes.

(B) The very metaphor used for force is “the sword,” which ought to tell you something.

Originally Posted by GORP006

Does it even say that the Punishment should be in accordance with Mosaic law, or any other Old Testament Law?

If Romans 13 is prescriptive and not descriptive only, then yes, it must teach this. And it cannot be merely descriptive since if it was any action of the government would necessarily be morally permissible. But we see that this is just not so by other statements in Scripture (e.g., about King Herrod, or the Beast of Revelation).

Originally Posted by GORP006

Romans 13 gives the government the right to punish the wrongdoer, the means of that punishment is not mentioned at all, so I will revert to When Jesus told us not to follow the eye for an eye punishment.

Matthew 5:17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Originally Posted by GORP006

So are all governments ordained by God? What about the saudi Government? Or what about when the Taliban were in power? What about the Mullahs in Iran? The Chinese Communists? Kim Jong Il? Are they all ordained by God?

Yes. This is the proof that Romans 13 is not descriptive only; it also prescribes behavior, because clearly not all governments do what God requires of them. They are all ordained by God to this role, but that doesn’t entail that what they do is right (e.g., King Saul was clearly ordained by God in a very direct way, yet he rebelled and disobeyed).

Originally Posted by GORP006

I would submit that when Paul refers to those in Authority, he's not necessarily talking about the Government being ordained by God as much as the Church leaders, or the leaders of the local community of believers.

Heh. Is that why he says "civil magistrate"?

Originally Posted by GORP006

I am aware of Travis's style of debating...I disagree with Travis's style of Debating.

What about my style of debating do you disagree with?

Originally Posted by GORP006

No, I say that he has the power to try to change things, and if he isn't willing to go to those efforts, then all he is doing is complaining.

Speak concretely here, if you are going to make such a serious charge. First, what power do I have, and what would I have to do to exercise it? Second, how do you know that I am not doing these things (whatever they are)?