Eminent Domain in the U.S. what are your thoughts?

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
This has been practiced since the inception of the U.S. basically it's the right of the government to force people to sell their property for whatever they deem it worth for whatever reason they deem necessary.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing? What are your thoughts on the practice?
 

Buba

A total creep
LOL!
US-centrism spotted :)
Actually it has been practiced since the Pharaos and God-Kings of Sumer.

Eminent Domain is an inevitable part of governing.
Neither good nor bad, it simply IS.
:)
Naturally, it should be used sensibly and in moderation, yadda yadda, but that applies to all powers the Government has.

For Polish readers (there are a few here) - eminent domain means "wywłaszczenie".
 
Last edited:

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Eminent domain is being practiced everywhere where there is central government. It is a necessity, but one that can be easily exploited for nefarious means.

basically it's the right of the government to force people to sell their property for whatever they deem it worth for whatever reason they deem necessary.
That's fucked up, according to our law, eminent domain can only be used as the last resort in building of critical infrastructure like highways and railways, there are also rules about the minimum payout, the owner is still supposed an approximate market worth for their property.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Eminent domain is just one more example of the modern era's turn to excess and abuse, directly derived from the implcit assumption of "the-state-as-god".

Let's consider property rights in pre-modern society. (In fact, virtually any pre-modern society.) Property is understood, as are all other things, in a hierarchical context. Who owns the realm? The sovereign. By what right? Divine mandate. What is the purpose of this mandate? To bring morally sound order and dispense justice in this world. It follows that the sovereign can grant titles of various sorts which entail obligations in return, but that the sovereign may not be arbitrary (lest he fail to be a just monarch, in which case his mandate is voided).

None of this is rocket science, and although all men are by nature corrupt, this approach has worked remarkably well for thousands of years. Thus we see feudal fiefs, held in tenure by feudatory lords, who typically have their own tenants as vassals in turn. The ownership of the fief is split so that the feudal lord (in the highest instance, the monarch) has dominium directum while the tenant tenant has dominium utile. In many cases, we see a pyramidical structure of local tenants who use the land and owe an obligation of service/payment to the local landlord, who in turn is a vassal of a higher lord (and owes him loyalty), who is in turn a feudatory to the monarch, who is actually the sovereign and the actual owner of the realm.

There are of course also freeholds of various sorts, which functionally tends to mean: one of the smaller sub-fiefs, but for some reason "liberated" from the aforementioned structure, and thus in obligation only to the sovereign, in an immediate relation. (Consider that the German word for "Baron", for instance, is "Freiherr". A "Free Lord". A traditional baron is the feudatory of freehold, and has no counts or dukes or such figures above him -- only the monarch.)

Finally, there is the concept of allodial property, which is "by nature free, hereditary, inherited from their forefathers, sovereign and held by the grace of God". Holders of allodial property are considered sovereign in that sense; they own no feudal duties to any other person, including the monarch. The income from allodial estates can't even be taxed. And the monarch cannot rescind an allodial title, since it is given on behalf of God. (No mortal can alienate it.)

And now we come to the modern era, and everything gets fucked. You wouldn't believe how badly everything gets messed up.

The problem is, the whole basis of property rights is utterly removed, because modernity rejects the divine mandate. Modernity decapitates monarchs. And then you get the state founded on "the popular will". In theory, the initial philosophers urging this on had an idea of all property becoming allodial. That is: inalienable and not subject to taxation. Check out the early USA: no property taxes, only imposts on trade, and a strong tendency to cosider property as "inviolate". But while Locke wrote "Life, Liberty and Property" (and indeed, Jefferson initially imitated that), the final draft of America's Declaration of Independence swapped out "Property" in favour of he nebulous "Pursuit of Happiness".

Meanwhile, in France, the revolution actually eliminated allodial property (because most of it was in fact owned by abbeys of the Church), and voided all property rights in the final instance. From that moment on, in the name of "the people", the state would be free to take away anyone's property at any time. And this became the norm, world-wide. Eminent domain is just the final expression of this totalitarian reality.

In short: the age of revolutions, which proclaimed to end feudalism and essentially free us all of servitude, has in reality made us all into serfs. Well-fed serfs, to be sure, but serfs nonetheless.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Eminent domain is being practiced everywhere where there is central government. It is a necessity, but one that can be easily exploited for nefarious means.


That's fucked up, according to our law, eminent domain can only be used as the last resort in building of critical infrastructure like highways and railways, there are also rules about the minimum payout, the owner is still supposed an approximate market worth for their property.
Sadly, an unfortunately large number of city councils feel that Walmart is critical infrastructure.


One of the main reasons huge chains tend to outcompete small businesses and Mom 'n Pop stores isn't actually economies of scale or whatever excuse tends to get offered as a claim they're just better at the game. It's because they have the bribe power to get the cities to legally destroy the small businesses for them, and eminent domain is a popular tool for that, along with excessive inspections. There also tend to be plenty of subsidies for the megacorps that aren't given to small businesses, and condemning/extra regulation and inspection on the smaller operations.


In theory I can see good uses for eminent domain but in practice I seem to see far more abuse of the law than uses for legitimate infrastructure building, especially in the last few decades where the US has barely built any infrastructure in the first place.
 

PeaceMaker 03

Well-known member
In Seattle the city used eminent domain to seize a parking lot from an elderly lady( was her source of income ).

The city then operated the parking lot in the name of the city.( down by the aquarium). A large multi acerage parking lot needed to expand infrastructure.
That was over a decade ago. The city found it beneficial to operate the parking lot.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Eminent domain is just one more example of the modern era's turn to excess and abuse, directly derived from the implcit assumption of "the-state-as-god".

Let's consider property rights in pre-modern society. (In fact, virtually any pre-modern society.) Property is understood, as are all other things, in a hierarchical context. Who owns the realm? The sovereign. By what right? Divine mandate. What is the purpose of this mandate? To bring morally sound order and dispense justice in this world. It follows that the sovereign can grant titles of various sorts which entail obligations in return, but that the sovereign may not be arbitrary (lest he fail to be a just monarch, in which case his mandate is voided).

None of this is rocket science, and although all men are by nature corrupt, this approach has worked remarkably well for thousands of years. Thus we see feudal fiefs, held in tenure by feudatory lords, who typically have their own tenants as vassals in turn. The ownership of the fief is split so that the feudal lord (in the highest instance, the monarch) has dominium directum while the tenant tenant has dominium utile. In many cases, we see a pyramidical structure of local tenants who use the land and owe an obligation of service/payment to the local landlord, who in turn is a vassal of a higher lord (and owes him loyalty), who is in turn a feudatory to the monarch, who is actually the sovereign and the actual owner of the realm.

There are of course also freeholds of various sorts, which functionally tends to mean: one of the smaller sub-fiefs, but for some reason "liberated" from the aforementioned structure, and thus in obligation only to the sovereign, in an immediate relation. (Consider that the German word for "Baron", for instance, is "Freiherr". A "Free Lord". A traditional baron is the feudatory of freehold, and has no counts or dukes or such figures above him -- only the monarch.)

Finally, there is the concept of allodial property, which is "by nature free, hereditary, inherited from their forefathers, sovereign and held by the grace of God". Holders of allodial property are considered sovereign in that sense; they own no feudal duties to any other person, including the monarch. The income from allodial estates can't even be taxed. And the monarch cannot rescind an allodial title, since it is given on behalf of God. (No mortal can alienate it.)

And now we come to the modern era, and everything gets fucked. You wouldn't believe how badly everything gets messed up.

The problem is, the whole basis of property rights is utterly removed, because modernity rejects the divine mandate. Modernity decapitates monarchs. And then you get the state founded on "the popular will". In theory, the initial philosophers urging this on had an idea of all property becoming allodial. That is: inalienable and not subject to taxation. Check out the early USA: no property taxes, only imposts on trade, and a strong tendency to cosider property as "inviolate". But while Locke wrote "Life, Liberty and Property" (and indeed, Jefferson initially imitated that), the final draft of America's Declaration of Independence swapped out "Property" in favour of he nebulous "Pursuit of Happiness".

Meanwhile, in France, the revolution actually eliminated allodial property (because most of it was in fact owned by abbeys of the Church), and voided all property rights in the final instance. From that moment on, in the name of "the people", the state would be free to take away anyone's property at any time. And this became the norm, world-wide. Eminent domain is just the final expression of this totalitarian reality.

In short: the age of revolutions, which proclaimed to end feudalism and essentially free us all of servitude, has in reality made us all into serfs. Well-fed serfs, to be sure, but serfs nonetheless.
There are so many things utterly wrong with what you just said, I scarcely know where to begin. Suffice to say, your romanticized view of the pre-modern world is incongruent with how it actually worked out in practice.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
There are so many things utterly wrong with what you just said, I scarcely know where to begin. Suffice to say, your romanticized view of the pre-modern world is incongruent with how it actually worked out in practice.
Your response contains no arguments; if that's your style of discussing, perhaps it's best you don't try to begin at all, and just hold your tongue.

Suffice to say, my view is not romanticised, but simply not excessively negative. My comments regarding human nature make it clear enough that I know abuse of power is a constant in history. But here's the crux, which you have somehow missed: the average modern state possesses considerably more power, in real terms, than pre-modern authorities ever did. Hence my assertion: we are all but well-fed serfs.

Underpinning this is the socio-economic reality. The world is far wealthier now, due to technological progression. But lo and behold, the ultra-rich elite today is exponentially wealthier than the most exalted of pre-modern elites. The difference in wealth between a mediaeval pauper and the Holy Roman Emperor was significantly smaller than the difference in wealth between, say, myself and Jeff Bezos. And I am not poor.

Now, don't mistake that for some quasi-communist tract. That's not my point. My point is that currently, the government is far bigger than it's ever been, taxes the poor and the middle class more than it ever has, and taxes the elite (which is richer than ever) less than it taxed most mediaeval aristocrats. This state of affairs indicates to me, very clearly, that something's gone pear-shaped.

And you complain that my view of the pre-modern world is incongruent with how it actually worked out in practice. Ha! I daresay that your view of the modern world is incongruent with how it is actually working out in practice, as we speak. You have fewer concrete rights than many of your ancestors; customary rights have been all but abolished, leaving you to the vagaries of legal positivism; the government can unilaterally take anything from you, and you don't even have any real recourse, because the government is more unitary than ever before in human history.

No, I am not the one with the romanticised view of the world. I simply don't romanticise or idealise modernity.
 
Last edited:

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
The difference in wealth between a mediaeval pauper and the Holy Roman Emperor was significantly smaller than the difference in wealth between, say, myself and Jeff Bezos.
You're forgetting a variety of very important things. Jeff Bezos is worth a grotesque sum, he does not have a grotesque sum of money like the Holy Roman Emperor's treasury, nor does he have personal command over a strategic sum of resources because Amazon's a retailer, not a producer. His power is being a man in the middle. We're already seeing what happens to that power when it's exercised.

This is the big lie of wealth inequality, because all these spectacularly mega-rich people today are stock holders. "Net worth" has virtually nothing to do with material reality until you cash out, which is inherently inefficient because selling reduces the price. It's that the stock market is ever further outgrowing the money supply, allowing for net worth values insanely detached from anything physical.

A king could flat-out buy your town's everything, and had the military forces to make it stick. Bezos can't get the tens to hundreds of millions in on-hand cash to pull it off without gutting his net worth and has no legal basis to press the matter.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
You're forgetting a variety of very important things. Jeff Bezos is worth a grotesque sum, he does not have a grotesque sum of money like the Holy Roman Emperor's treasury, nor does he have personal command over a strategic sum of resources because Amazon's a retailer, not a producer. His power is being a man in the middle. We're already seeing what happens to that power when it's exercised.

This is the big lie of wealth inequality, because all these spectacularly mega-rich people today are stock holders. "Net worth" has virtually nothing to do with material reality until you cash out, which is inherently inefficient because selling reduces the price. It's that the stock market is ever further outgrowing the money supply, allowing for net worth values insanely detached from anything physical.

A king could flat-out buy your town's everything, and had the military forces to make it stick. Bezos can't get the tens to hundreds of millions in on-hand cash to pull it off without gutting his net worth and has no legal basis to press the matter.
You're forgetting a variety of very important things, too.

The Holy Roman Emperor is bound by a delicate web of obligations, and can't just unilaterally rake in -- or even indiscriminately spend -- money, even though he ultimately owns the treasury. His own command over a strategic sum of resources relies on the active participation of his feudatories, which severely limits him. For instance, the nobility is expeted to render service in arms. But they must also tend to their fiefs. Which is why mediaeval campaigns tend to be short. Exceed certain limits, and you unavoidably mess up your economy. Same goes for your opponents.

The Holy Roman Emperor is, in many ways, the CEO of the realm. He cannot exceed his limits without consequence, and his power relies on those "in the middle". The consequence is that a monarch cannot flat-out buy everything. In fact, most monarchs for most of history have spent most of their reigns teetering on the edge of insolvency.

The Holy Roman Empire can't even maintain a standing army without gutting his "net worth". Oh, and he has no legal basis to "press the matter", either. Because mutual obligations being defined and limited in scope is sort of... the basic idea of feudalism. He couldn't just raise taxes to a level exceeding something we'd call extremely low. He couldn't just kick annoying nobles off their land without consequences. He was as bound by the order of things as they were. The hierarchy defined the world.

This brings us back to what I was actually pointing out. The modern world has wrecked the hierarchy. The dream was that this would make men equal. What it has actually done is remove all the power that was once distributed among gradated tiers, only to concentrate it at the very top. The state is now a unitary monolith with more power than ever, more money than ever, more instruments than ever. It exerts control over aspects of life that no pre-modern ruler would even think to get involved in. Meanwhile, the great oligarchs today are richer than any king of old, and -- as I have outlined above -- the limitations you ascribe to them were no less relevant in the past.

That is modernity in summation: all other things being equal, the simple reality is that the elite is presently more powerful, more affluent, less accountable and less constrained than ever before. The power of the centralised modern state to take away people's property without scruples or consequences is simply one facet of this. Factually speaking, we live in a totalitarian age. It just doesn't stand out that much, because society is -- or appears to be -- very wealthy at present. Even omnipotent governments can afford to regularly act in soft and pleasant ways, during periods of plenty.

Periods of plenty don't last. Come the lean years, you'll see the true face of modernity. We've glimpsed it already, during the 20th century. You'll be begging to have the Holy Roman Emperor back, before this is over.

And you'll get him back, too. But that's another story.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
You're forgetting a variety of very important things, too.

The Holy Roman Emperor is bound by a delicate web of obligations, and can't just unilaterally rake in -- or even indiscriminately spend -- money, even though he ultimately owns the treasury. His own command over a strategic sum of resources relies on the active participation of his feudatories, which severely limits him. For instance, the nobility is expeted to render service in arms. But they must also tend to their fiefs. Which is why mediaeval campaigns tend to be short. Exceed certain limits, and you unavoidably mess up your economy. Same goes for your opponents.

The Holy Roman Emperor is, in many ways, the CEO of the realm. He cannot exceed his limits without consequence, and his power relies on those "in the middle". The consequence is that a monarch cannot flat-out buy everything. In fact, most monarchs for most of history have spent most of their reigns teetering on the edge of insolvency.

The Holy Roman Empire can't even maintain a standing army without gutting his "net worth". Oh, and he has no legal basis to "press the matter", either. Because mutual obligations being defined and limited in scope is sort of... the basic idea of feudalism. He couldn't just raise taxes to a level exceeding something we'd call extremely low. He couldn't just kick annoying nobles off their land without consequences. He was as bound by the order of things as they were. The hierarchy defined the world.

This brings us back to what I was actually pointing out. The modern world has wrecked the hierarchy. The dream was that this would make men equal. What it has actually done is remove all the power that was once distributed among gradated tiers, only to concentrate it at the very top. The state is now a unitary monolith with more power than ever, more money than ever, more instruments than ever. It exerts control over aspects of life that no pre-modern ruler would even think to get involved in. Meanwhile, the great oligarchs today are richer than any king of old, and -- as I have outlined above -- the limitations you ascribe to them were no less relevant in the past.

That is modernity in summation: all other things being equal, the simple reality is that the elite is presently more powerful, more affluent, less accountable and less constrained than ever before. The power of the centralised modern state to take away people's property without scruples or consequences is simply one facet of this. Factually speaking, we live in a totalitarian age. It just doesn't stand out that much, because society is -- or appears to be -- very wealthy at present. Even omnipotent governments can afford to regularly act in soft and pleasant ways, during periods of plenty.

Periods of plenty don't last. Come the lean years, you'll see the true face of modernity. We've glimpsed it already, during the 20th century. You'll be begging to have the Holy Roman Emperor back, before this is over.

And you'll get him back, too. But that's another story.

that is a story I want to hear.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Your response contains no arguments; if that's your style of discussing, perhaps it's best you don't try to begin at all, and just hold your tongue.

Suffice to say, my view is not romanticised, but simply not excessively negative. My comments regarding human nature make it clear enough that I know abuse of power is a constant in history. But here's the crux, which you have somehow missed: the average modern state possesses considerably more power, in real terms, than pre-modern authorities ever did. Hence my assertion: we are all but well-fed serfs.

Underpinning this is the socio-economic reality. The world is far wealthier now, due to technological progression. But lo and behold, the ultra-rich elite today is exponentially wealthier than the most exalted of pre-modern elites. The difference in wealth between a mediaeval pauper and the Holy Roman Emperor was significantly smaller than the difference in wealth between, say, myself and Jeff Bezos. And I am not poor.

Now, don't mistake that for some quasi-communist tract. That's not my point. My point is that currently, the government is far bigger than it's ever been, taxes the poor and the middle class more than it ever has, and taxes the elite (which is richer than ever) less than it taxed most mediaeval aristocrats. This state of affairs indicates to me, very clearly, that something's gone pear-shaped.

And you complain that my view of the pre-modern world is incongruent with how it actually worked out in practice. Ha! I daresay that your view of the modern world is incongruent with how it is actually working out in practice, as we speak. You have fewer concrete rights than many of your ancestors; customary rights have been all but abolished, leaving you to the vagaries of legal positivism; the government can unilaterally take anything from you, and you don't even have any real recourse, because the government is more unitary than ever before in human history.

No, I am not the one with the romanticised view of the world. I simply don't romanticise or idealise modernity.
I am currently educating myself on the French Revolution; in particular, the gross mismanagement that led up to it. The fact of the matter is that the elites of France bankrupted and destroyed the country due to a combination of selfishness, shortsightedness, and repeatedly kicking the can down the road until the country's economic and social problems became insurmountable. Government positions were bought and sold as status symbols, the treasury was emptied to pay for pointless wars and lavish lifestyles, and only the poor paid any taxes. In short, the French Revolution was an inevitable product of the pre-modern world.

I'm not saying we don't have massive wealth inequality; nor am I saying that our rights haven't been gutted. Things are shit right now. What I am saying is that things have been shit for nearly all of human history; with only brief respites scattered throughout. Modern or pre-modern, it doesn't matter; the problem is people, because too many people are, by and large, self-centered jerks who ruin things for everyone else because of their arrogance and stupidity.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
I am currently educating myself on the French Revolution; in particular, the gross mismanagement that led up to it. The fact of the matter is that the elites of France bankrupted and destroyed the country due to a combination of selfishness, shortsightedness, and repeatedly kicking the can down the road until the country's economic and social problems became insurmountable. Government positions were bought and sold as status symbols, the treasury was emptied to pay for pointless wars and lavish lifestyles, and only the poor paid any taxes. In short, the French Revolution was an inevitable product of the pre-modern world.
I would argue the contrary; that the French revolution was the inevitable product of the demise of the pre-modern world. The treasury was emptied for pointless wars, yes. Something I've already indicated is more of a 'modern' problem that a 'pre-modern' one. More accurately: it's a universally recurring issue of bad governance in all ages, but it became a structural failing in the modern age.

Let's look at pre-Revolution France. The Versailles system is completely based on centralisation of power, and the monarch exerting unprecedented control over the aristocracy. The government positions being sold were available to non-aristocratic bureaucrats who actively supported the centralising order (because it served their interests). France, in short, was well on its way to stepping out of the traditional social hierarchy. The French revolution is a significant and useful benchmark for the start of 'modern times', but we can't pretend that France under Louis XIV's reforms was still a traditionally feudal society.

France's problems were not the result of the pre-modern order, but of encroaching modernity. The aristocracy had been politically weakened to such an extent that their power to curtail the monarch and the central government was no longer of enough significance. The entrenched bureacracy had changed the way government worked -- both in fuction and scope -- to a degree unmatched elsewhere in Europe. (Although, in its own way, Britain was going the same route by different steps; a result it its own power-amassing monarchy, as of Henry VIII. But the British process was more gradual, obviously.)

We return to the same underlying issue: my argument is that the "checksand balances" of modernity are a joke, because modern government is inherently monolithic. Centralised, organised and consolidated. The "branches" all serve the same ultimate interest, so they don't really keep each other in check at all. The trajectory is towards more government power. That's a process that started c. 1500, hit an acceleration with "enlightened despotism", and went into overdrive with the Age of Revolutions. (Which notably eliminated the clergy as a separate power of importace.)

Now compare this to the feudal ordering of society that I've referenced. The monarchy, the high aristocracy, the lower aristocracy, the burghers, the gentry (meaning non-aristocratic land-owners) and the clergy all had reasons to keep the others in check, and to certainly prevent any of the others from becoming universally dominant. This system was far from flawless, of course. The point is that it was amazingly well-balanced. It struck a natural equilibrium of both aligning and conflicting interests. Thus, it prevented unilateral autocracy, but also prevented universal conflict.

Modernity has eliminated most of these distinct factions. The "middle" has been violently struck out of society. This began with Kings setting up (increasingly burger-dominated) bureaucracies to side-step the aristocracy, the gentry and the clergy. It ended with those newly ascended burghers using the centralised structures to eliminate their rivals... ultimately including the monarch. (In extreme cases, by lopping his head off. In less extreme cases, by stripping him of true power.)

But with centralism firmly in place, and all the traditional checks on central authority removed, the result was a burgher-autocracy. Not a universal monarch (as the enlightened despots had imagined), but a universally powerful bureaucratic government, dominated by the burgher-class. Theoretically, this government is accountable to all and accessible to all. In practice, that's pure fiction. It's become increasingly obvious that the financial elite (the super-rich) and the governmental elite (the government, and most especially the 'deep state') are really one undifferentiated elite, pursuing one shared interest.

My thesis, then, is that modernity has severely unbalanced society; has created vast extremes; preaches egalitarianism but has in practice created a huge gulf between an all-powerful elite and a generally powerless populace; and masks this reality through extensive populism (all sorts of welfare) aimed at keeping the masses docile. It's hard to understate just how dangerous that situation is. You basically have an all-powerful regime with functionally unlimited authority that swears it'll never use its power to hurts you... but has repeatedly shown that when push comes to shove, yes, it will use that power to hurt you.

I'm not saying we don't have massive wealth inequality; nor am I saying that our rights haven't been gutted. Things are shit right now. What I am saying is that things have been shit for nearly all of human history; with only brief respites scattered throughout. Modern or pre-modern, it doesn't matter; the problem is people, because too many people are, by and large, self-centered jerks who ruin things for everyone else because of their arrogance and stupidity.
I agree with the assessment, without reservation. My only addition -- and that's a pretty crucial one -- is that jerks with unlimited power are vastly more dangerous than jerks with limited power. The elite of the modern world is exceedingly powerful.

My suggestion isn't that we should -- or will -- go back to the pre-modern world in a sort of leap backwards. Instead, I'm saying that we need to learn the lessons of history. The current system is too dangerous to be acceptable, and isn't remotely stable, either. What we need is a way to emulate the far superior pre-modern "balance of power". We need regional elites who can effectively challenge the central power. We need to divide governmental auithority both institutionally and territorially in such a way that no single entity is powerful enough to rule unilaterally. And we need religion. Specifically, we need a Church that can actively keep all temporal powers in check. Rulers must fear the threat of excommunication again.

The situation I outline here will not magically prevent injustice. In fact, I'm sure that even cases of people being deprived of their property will still occur -- as they always have. But it won't happen unless quite a few people (who generally have competing interests) agree that it must happen. The age of "eminent domain" will be over and done with. It won't be that easy anymore, for a government to take things away from you with the mere scratch of a bureaucrat's pen.

And that's the goal, isn't it?
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
I would argue the contrary; that the French revolution was the inevitable product of the demise of the pre-modern world. The treasury was emptied for pointless wars, yes. Something I've already indicated is more of a 'modern' problem that a 'pre-modern' one. More accurately: it's a universally recurring issue of bad governance in all ages, but it became a structural failing in the modern age.

Let's look at pre-Revolution France. The Versailles system is completely based on centralisation of power, and the monarch exerting unprecedented control over the aristocracy. The government positions being sold were available to non-aristocratic bureaucrats who actively supported the centralising order (because it served their interests). France, in short, was well on its way to stepping out of the traditional social hierarchy. The French revolution is a significant and useful benchmark for the start of 'modern times', but we can't pretend that France under Louis XIV's reforms was still a traditionally feudal society.

France's problems were not the result of the pre-modern order, but of encroaching modernity. The aristocracy had been politically weakened to such an extent that their power to curtail the monarch and the central government was no longer of enough significance. The entrenched bureacracy had changed the way government worked -- both in fuction and scope -- to a degree unmatched elsewhere in Europe. (Although, in its own way, Britain was going the same route by different steps; a result it its own power-amassing monarchy, as of Henry VIII. But the British process was more gradual, obviously.)

We return to the same underlying issue: my argument is that the "checksand balances" of modernity are a joke, because modern government is inherently monolithic. Centralised, organised and consolidated. The "branches" all serve the same ultimate interest, so they don't really keep each other in check at all. The trajectory is towards more government power. That's a process that started c. 1500, hit an acceleration with "enlightened despotism", and went into overdrive with the Age of Revolutions. (Which notably eliminated the clergy as a separate power of importace.)

Now compare this to the feudal ordering of society that I've referenced. The monarchy, the high aristocracy, the lower aristocracy, the burghers, the gentry (meaning non-aristocratic land-owners) and the clergy all had reasons to keep the others in check, and to certainly prevent any of the others from becoming universally dominant. This system was far from flawless, of course. The point is that it was amazingly well-balanced. It struck a natural equilibrium of both aligning and conflicting interests. Thus, it prevented unilateral autocracy, but also prevented universal conflict.

Modernity has eliminated most of these distinct factions. The "middle" has been violently struck out of society. This began with Kings setting up (increasingly burger-dominated) bureaucracies to side-step the aristocracy, the gentry and the clergy. It ended with those newly ascended burghers using the centralised structures to eliminate their rivals... ultimately including the monarch. (In extreme cases, by lopping his head off. In less extreme cases, by stripping him of true power.)

But with centralism firmly in place, and all the traditional checks on central authority removed, the result was a burgher-autocracy. Not a universal monarch (as the enlightened despots had imagined), but a universally powerful bureaucratic government, dominated by the burgher-class. Theoretically, this government is accountable to all and accessible to all. In practice, that's pure fiction. It's become increasingly obvious that the financial elite (the super-rich) and the governmental elite (the government, and most especially the 'deep state') are really one undifferentiated elite, pursuing one shared interest.

My thesis, then, is that modernity has severely unbalanced society; has created vast extremes; preaches egalitarianism but has in practice created a huge gulf between an all-powerful elite and a generally powerless populace; and masks this reality through extensive populism (all sorts of welfare) aimed at keeping the masses docile. It's hard to understate just how dangerous that situation is. You basically have an all-powerful regime with functionally unlimited authority that swears it'll never use its power to hurts you... but has repeatedly shown that when push comes to shove, yes, it will use that power to hurt you.
Government is general has always proven to be monolithic; because people who want power, which are almost always the sort who end up with power, always want more power. Even if a system is designed to curtail that sort of thing (as America's was), unless everyone is constantly vigilant, corruption quickly sets and grows until the government no longer resembles what it originally was set up to be.

I agree with the assessment, without reservation. My only addition -- and that's a pretty crucial one -- is that jerks with unlimited power are vastly more dangerous than jerks with limited power. The elite of the modern world is exceedingly powerful.

My suggestion isn't that we should -- or will -- go back to the pre-modern world in a sort of leap backwards. Instead, I'm saying that we need to learn the lessons of history. The current system is too dangerous to be acceptable, and isn't remotely stable, either. What we need is a way to emulate the far superior pre-modern "balance of power". We need regional elites who can effectively challenge the central power. We need to divide governmental auithority both institutionally and territorially in such a way that no single entity is powerful enough to rule unilaterally. And we need religion. Specifically, we need a Church that can actively keep all temporal powers in check. Rulers must fear the threat of excommunication again.

The situation I outline here will not magically prevent injustice. In fact, I'm sure that even cases of people being deprived of their property will still occur -- as they always have. But it won't happen unless quite a few people (who generally have competing interests) agree that it must happen. The age of "eminent domain" will be over and done with. It won't be that easy anymore, for a government to take things away from you with the mere scratch of a bureaucrat's pen.

And that's the goal, isn't it?
In other words, what we need to do is take the lessons learned from the pre-modern and modern systems of governance, and create a sort of post-modern system that combines their best elements, and excises their worst, into something better than either? I can get behind that general idea at least, even if I don't agree with the specific setup you're suggesting (as I am not a Christian, I oppose the idea of the Church regaining significant political power).
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
I'd argue that eminent domain has its uses but only for public things like roads and infrastructure and the compensation must be fair .Every other use of it can go take a hike
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
It makes sense as a power, but, well, is a supremely dangerous one. And is a denial of individual sovereignty, basically stating that all property is the governments. Which in one way is true, at least as things stand now, but I'm not sure we want it to be that way.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
It makes sense as a power, but, well, is a supremely dangerous one. And is a denial of individual sovereignty, basically stating that all property is the governments. Which in one way is true, at least as things stand now, but I'm not sure we want it to be that way.

You say that as if eminent domain was some dangerous new liberal concept in government. Eminent domain is one of the inherent powers that define a sovereign government, which is one of the many reasons that even when the United States made a radical break away from traditional monarchy, the power of eminent domain was explicitly written into the Constitution.

It makes sense as a power, but, well, is a supremely dangerous one. And is a denial of individual sovereignty, basically stating that all property is the governments. Which in one way is true, at least as things stand now, but I'm not sure we want it to be that way.

It's true, it always has been true, and it must always be true. This is so inherent to having any sort of functional government authority that it is considered one of the defining characteristics of sovereignty. The U.S. government would have this power by virtue of being the government even if it was not written into the Constitution.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Eminent Domain is a touchy subject for Capitalists of all stripes. I don't actually agree with the notion that all property be ultimately the government's is an inherent part of being a functional government, as sufficient economic dependencies render it false from leading to Banana Republic incidents, as well as the shenanigans with China, but some capacity for it is vital for the functions of government to occur as there's plenty of involvement one might need in an urban center.

For example, I would doubt a meaningful portion of the country today would have blinked at eminent domain being used in the Spanish-American war to build a military base in the middle of a pasture because that constituted a good position for a base, and nobody got anywhere with such complaints when it came to keeping military bases made during WW2 as enclaves of US territory.

The problem is when it's on behalf of private industry. The government taking it and "selling" it to a private business is full of perverse incentives and rich-get-richer properties. If something is genuinely so vital as to be worth infringing on property rights by legally requiring sale of land, then that is a sign it should be nationalized infrastructure, or that there is need for a major project to unfuck the economy.

And yes, I'm fine with this meaning nationalizing fossil fuels, internet access, and even mineral extraction. The foundations of the economy should be as tightly regulated against profit-seeking as possible, because any extraneous cost in them echoes outward into a weight on the entire economy. Base materials and means of trade are the thing, as well as fundamental needs.

Of such matters, food production, water, natural gas, and electricity distribution, trade by road, rail, and I think river and sea, as well as communication by mail, telephone, and in person all have direct government involvement as guarantor of open access in one way or another.

The digital internet has grown to be of similar, if not greater, importance to previous such measures for both trade and communication. Designating social media as common carriers alongside the ISPs themselves seems fitting, while the payment processors need the full sack of bank restrictions thrown at them for holding the same functions responsible for banks having such restrictions.

Housing is the one basic need not covered in any useful fashion, because the importance of land spiked far too quickly to build the framework before big money got in the way, and it's a highly unintuitive subject for how it actually works out. In many respects, the problems with getting the government to assure sensible housing costs as it does for food and water is the same problems facing dedicated urban planning, in that there aren't clean formulae or neat divisions.

Well-working cities require what looks to be arbitrary chaotic blending, because you need all sorts of things along the routes to workplaces or in walking distance of housing. Travel constraints imply hexagonal grids of "coverage", which don't cooperate with road layouts because hexagons don't give straight roads and triangles give turns that are too tight.

Regardless of travel path layouts, districting is farcical because of the varying "coverage" of different services and how travel times increase with population densities. What worked for New York when its roads were built fits terribly today, because the number of services expected for a lower-middle-class lifestyle have expanded and the population density has exploded.

...Okay, that post went some weird places.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top