Eminent domain is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. It can be legislatively delegated by state governments to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character. Opponents, including Conservatives and Libertarians in New Hampshire, oppose giving the government the power to seize property for private projects, like casinos. Proponents, including advocates of oil pipelines and national parks, argue that the construction of roads and schools would not be possible if the government could not seize land under eminent domain.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property
@JonBSimConstitution1yr1Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
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.
@44W3J3T3yrs3Y
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.
@44VT3LL3yrs3Y
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.
@44TRJ883yrs3Y
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.
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
@942Q8PF1yr1Y
No, unless it’s in cases of extreme emergency
@95F59841yr1Y
Private property should not exist
Deleted3mos3MO
Respectfully, drive inside a Iake
@JonBSimConstitution1yr1Y
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 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.
@TruthHurts1013mos3MO
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.
@44ZS9ZS3yrs3Y
The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.
@44ZH23B3yrs3Y
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.
@453BVPM3yrs3Y
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.
@453GCX93yrs3Y
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.
@4523W843yrs3Y
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.
@9CL9R233mos3MO
No, but allow in cases of extreme emergency
@985JWL210mos10MO
Private property is inherently theft
@9D3RPBQ2mos2MO
All Private property must be abolished.
@8NNG93QLibertarian3yrs3Y
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.
@97KSZBQ11mos11MO
I think there are good arguments on both sides of this issue.
@8YGYD5Y2yrs2Y
No, only in cases of emergency
@93SB7YB1yr1Y
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects are public and the projects will benefit the community.
Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated
yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and the landowner is compensated far above market price
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
Why should they be compensated far above market price? How is it even a seizure if they're practically paying for it..?
@8MBS6TJ3yrs3Y
@8GRC9XB3yrs3Y
@8FHH7K23yrs3Y
@9FKJ6F616hrs16H
No, unless it is an absolute necessity for public safety
@9F3FPQG 23hrs23H
No, and this is possibly a violation of the fourth amendment
@9FK9V5JProgressive1 day1D
Yes, but provide shelter and compensation 20% above market price
@9FK9T8Q1 day1D
Unless its for a national emergency approved by the courts
@9FJQLN62 days2D
No, the government shouldn’t be able to take anything from anyone, unless it benefits the well-being of all.
Yes, but only for public projects where landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@9FJMQG33 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...
