Private Property and Changing Notion of Publicity
2005.06.28 1:37

Nowadays many facilities are owned by private sectors -not owned by government, local government, etc. so we cannot measure only from the viewpoint who owns the facilities but how those work on our daily life. For example many railways are private ownership, but their function is very very public. When someone's private property -for example land needed to be used or sacrificed for the benifit of public facilities happened to be owned by private one, those who own their property cannot oppose to thier property's being confiscated simply because those facilities happened to be owned by private. If it is highly public, those facilities are liable to be regarded as public regardless of their real ownership.
At the midst of capitalism, the age fewer and fewer what government actually own, the recent court ruling is along with the flow of our times.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Private Property and Changing Notion of Publicity Preferences Top 2 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 2 comments 0: 2 comments 1: 2 comments 2: 1 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Actually...(Score:2)
by Otter (3800) on 2005.06.28 2:04 (#12921902) (Last Journal: 2005.09.28 11:54)
You're misunderstanding what the Kelo decision is about. There's no question that US law allows eminent domain takings for public purposes. This was an issue of a goverment taking property from one private party and giving it to another, on the grounds that it served public interest -- something that has always been understood to be illegal.
Re:Actually...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.28 2:47 (#12922426) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
something that has always been understood to be illegal.
If I were to take a devil's advocate, my reply to this ruling might be like this,...
Strange. This court ruling is apparently reactionary. In general court allows authorities to take legal possesions of private property in public use, but because this case is for private profit-making re-development plan, it is appalling. ....In socialist state many private sectors are liable to being used, confiscated for the benefit of the public or just being nationalised, this might be comparable to legal possesions of private property in public use in capitalist counties, even this would be considered a serious infringement of private ownership, in this particular case because the court is involving in the redistribution of wealth between 'private properties'. That's sheer illegal(as you mentioned). This phenonemon was exactly seen in the early formation of corporatism, Nazism, militalism -prewar Italy, Germany, Japan respectively. ...Courts ought not to interfere with such private affairs on how to redistribute wealth simply because one seems highly publicly usable than others. ...At least liberal judges ought not to have been in favour of this decision...
These ideas represent many liberals' opinion, but actually those ideas are obsolete, out of use already. Nowadays because just many many facilities, organisations, etc. are private ownership but what they are doing is very similar to what it used to be done by government, local government. The ownership is private, but their function is public. Therefore nowadays we are not supposed to prohibit positive interference with who owns what facilities and organisations.
That's the point on my JE.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters