Try the political quiz

2k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky agreed…1yr1Y

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

The most important value a citizen has is private property.

If they want to live in a contaminated house after a chemical spill, that's their right.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...6yrs6Y

Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

No, unless it is for an oil pipeline project

 @8JCJLWVUnity from Texas answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only if landowners are compensated above fair market price. There is need for eminent domain, but it should be a extra costly to infringe on rights.

 @44W3J3Tfrom Maryland answered…3yrs3Y

Eminent domain was intended for use during times of war, putting in a dog park or a nature preserve is not a situation equivalent of a national emergency. No the government should not seize private property, as the people are very rarely fairly compensated.

 @44VT3LLfrom Connecticut answered…3yrs3Y

yes only for public education, recreation, and preservation. Not for profit making industrial ventures or for agencies slated for privitization now or in the future.

 @44TRJ88from Texas answered…3yrs3Y

So let's take this and run, Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community, so I've noticed that opens a can of worms. What we are not taking into account is what fair is. It's not fair to be like China and demand someone move or destroy their home. I would say for the hassle the government should pay a market rate, not the city's suggested understanding of what your home is worth. That's not a true market rate, it's just whatever the city thinks your house is worth enough to charge you tax on. For example I think I could sell my house for x amount and the city would only pay me y amount, that's not fair. Add into that moving is a pain, it's something no one wants to do. So pay the homeowner what the house is truly worth and add 10% for moving and suffering. Then I guess that's good.

 @452J4KKGreenfrom Florida answered…3yrs3Y

 @942Q8PF from Michigan answered…1yr1Y

 @95F5984 from Illinois answered…1yr1Y

Private property should not exist

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky disagreed…1yr1Y

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

That's stupid.

Every time that has been practiced it has ended in disaster.

And no one really believes in abolishing private property, because all humans want things for themselves.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…3mos3MO

Yea the disaster is when colonizers/capitalists invade them and ruin their system.

Secondly, yes, a lot of people want to abolish private property, because they recognize that a system founded on private ownership of the means of production is blatantly anti-democratic and detrimental to society. No need to project your own selfish values onto all of humanity.

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…3mos3MO

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Private property, next to life, is our. most valuable right.

 @44ZS9ZSfrom Guam answered…3yrs3Y

The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.

 @44ZH23Bfrom North Carolina answered…3yrs3Y

In principal the government should be allowed to, but given this government's lack of principals on the metaphysical order, its reasons for seizing land most likely would be unjustified, so no.

 @453BVPMfrom Georgia answered…3yrs3Y

I believe that private property belongs to the individual who purchased it. There are very few projects that are so vitally important to the well-being of the community that the seizing of property could be warranted. A compromise can almost always be worked out. Property must NEVER be seized by the government for the purposes of a project being conducted by a private industry.

 @453GCX9from Florida answered…3yrs3Y

No, reasonable compensation suggests that the land is sold; not seized. Just purchase it. I do believe in the exception for expanding roads to a degree. If a fully paved, busy road needs expansion, seizure with compensation should be aloud, but only if voted on by the community.

 @4523W84from California answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only when it is a necessity for public health or if the property is in a strategic location that will bring great benefit to the community or if the land is absolutely needed in a time of war.

 @9CL9R23 from Michigan answered…3mos3MO

 @8NNG93QLibertarianfrom Virgin Islands answered…3yrs3Y

Yes as long as the owner is compensated fairly above the value of the land and if they agree, or only in extreme cases of national emergency.

 @97KSZBQ from Georgia answered…11mos11MO

 @93SB7YB from Florida answered…1yr1Y

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects are public and the projects will benefit the community.

 @92N6YWMCommunist from Texas answered…1yr1Y

Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated

 @985SMXBDemocrat from North Carolina answered…10mos10MO

yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and the landowner is compensated far above market price

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…10mos10MO

Why should they be compensated far above market price? How is it even a seizure if they're practically paying for it..?

 @8MBS6TJ from New Jersey answered…3yrs3Y

I think that they should be allowed to do this with the land owner's permission.

 @8GRC9XB from Oklahoma answered…3yrs3Y

No, unless it’s an absolute emergency or or absolutely necessary. (Not oil pipelines)

 @8QS6KQGDemocrat from Michigan disagreed…3yrs3Y


It is in the bill of rights that the government cannot seize property.

 @8FHH7K2 from Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

No, the only land that can be "seized" should be to put towards settling debt and abandoned properties

 @8QS6KQGDemocrat from Michigan agreed…3yrs3Y

 @9FKJ6F6 from Wisconsin answered…16hrs16H

 @9F3FPQG  from Florida answered…23hrs23H

 @9FK9V5JProgressive from Alabama answered…1 day1D

 @9FK9T8Q from New Jersey answered…1 day1D

 @9FJQLN6 from Nebraska answered…2 days2D

No, the government shouldn’t be able to take anything from anyone, unless it benefits the well-being of all.

 @7PTCG38Democrat  from Wisconsin answered…3 days3D

Yes, but only for public projects where landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community

 @9FJMQG3 from Texas answered…3 days3D

Yes, but only if absolutely necessary, and the owner has the right to oppose the seizure of their property.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...