Local government given permission to seize personal property

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 7/8/2005, 2:35 pm

And yet so indicative of our world culture.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/8/2005, 5:18 pm

That is sickening. Not the wal-mart thing althought that is pretty bad too, the land thing. What the fuck is wrong with people? It's all about money these days, money that people don't even spend. All these rich people just sit there with literally money to burn. They don't use it. They just have it, to say that have it. They don't need it! What good is a shopping mall, if there is nobody around to shop in it, because you plowed their homes to build it?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/8/2005, 5:32 pm

That is what is bizarre about this ruling. I haven't bumped into anyone yet that has embraced this ruling. Why would the supreme court allow it then?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/8/2005, 5:40 pm

That's a very good question. Shouldn't the Supreme Court be ruling on what is best for society?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/8/2005, 5:41 pm

Well apparently they think this IS what is best for society. The idea is that it will improve the economy, which is probably true. That doesn't mean it's right however.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/8/2005, 5:46 pm

True. The government should rule in what is best for the citizens. The public. Not the corporations.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/8/2005, 5:48 pm

Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Given these "corporations" are able to establish new business realms means more jobs for the citizens. This in turn means more income per household and in turn means more spending and more jobs helping even more citizens. Theoretically that is.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/8/2005, 5:52 pm

Fair argument. But if homes are destroyed for the making of these businesses, then where are the workers going to live? Also the majority of people aren't going to want to work in a place that destroyed their home. This means that new people will have to be brought in, but since the houses have been destroyed then they will have to commute farther, which would increase pollution. Theoretically.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/8/2005, 5:55 pm

Well considering they pay you for your property, you should be able to easily buy a new home elsewhere. And companies aren't going to exactly level an entire city, just enough space for what they want, meaning there should be plenty of homes still available.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/8/2005, 6:29 pm

You have to remember, that a lot of those homes are still occupied by their current residents. Homes that are being built take time to build. It took over a year for my house to be built. They don't start building the house either until the property is bought, unless they need to finish the area. Even if you're buying a used house it takes time to move in. In the mean time where do you sleep, and store all of your stuff?

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/8/2005, 6:31 pm

That brings up a good question. I wonder how much time is given to get off your property?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/8/2005, 6:33 pm

I don't think you get that long really. I'd guess about a month.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 7/9/2005, 1:01 am

I think that we as a societ have reached a point where we will "do anything" to improve economics. Where does moral judgement come in? Is money the most important thing? Not really. It's the persuit of happiness. Unfortunately for us, most people equate happiness with being rich.

Dr. Hobo · Post by **Dr. Hobo** » 7/9/2005, 1:26 am

the counter argument of that would be "happiness cant put food on the table"

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 7/9/2005, 6:22 am

A lot of people consider economics as the the ensurance of happiness. Without it no one would be happy.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/9/2005, 8:21 am

Many poor people find themselves being happy. Money can't buy happiness.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 7/9/2005, 8:59 am

It depends on the person. Ask someone who just lost their job if they're happy. To me in order to be happy you need a sense of stability. If you don't have it odds are you're spending more time worrying about things than you are being happy. The economy provides stability for a lot of people, and therefore happiness.

Of course people say money can't buy happiness. But it sure does help.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 7/9/2005, 12:26 pm

Good point. Having what you need does relieve some pressure. But I think it's having something constructive and fulfilling to do that makes people happy, and getting some reward. Not just having the money. I know quite a few people actually who are in quite poor and yet you'd never think they are unhappy.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/9/2005, 2:24 pm

Happiness comes to everyone in a different form. For some it takes very little to be happy. I read a story as a child, about a very rich king, who was told he needed to sleep in the happiest mans shirt to be cured of an ailment. He found the happiest man, but he was so poor, he did own a shirt. I wish I could remember it better, it had a good moral.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 7/10/2005, 2:46 am

All I know is that if I were forced out of this house that I've lived in (almost) all my life just so that a strip mall could be constructed, I'd be anything but happy. And I know for sure that I'm not the only person on this planet with emotional attachments to their home.