Roundup

Scott Lemieux is in my opinion making the same mistake both the Court and many commenters make–confusing “public use” and “public interest”. The Bill of Rights provides for takings with compensation for public use; it says nothing at all about takings in the public interest.

Lemieux’s concern that the court system might become “an all-purpose economic regulator” is curious. It may be true that courts do not like the difficult business of interpreting laws and making fine distinctions & balancing interests when applying them to special circumstances, but why should we care? THAT’S THEIR JOB. Legislative bodies cannot be rationally expected to anticipate every conceivable challenge that might arise in applying the laws that they generate. Traditionally, we have depended upon the judicial branch perform this necessary duty.

The more I’ve thought about this issue, the more I’ve come to think that society might actually be better off if it allowed THE MARKETPLACE to determine if and when a property is sold to the government, and at what price. On the plus side of this argument, the government would be able to further reduce its “coercive role” in the lives of citizens, something that really beings to rile people when they believe the government is about to force them to give up their property at a net loss. Why besmirch the name of Government for no good reason? On the other side of the coin, there would be concern expressed that individual owners of property might exploit any government commitment to pursue “only non-coercive means” of obtaining property (by demanding an extraordinary and unreasonably high price).

This is not really the problem it would seem to be. Yes, if there is only one seller in the market, and the government’s demand is quite inelastic, then the seller will enjoy a great deal of market power that he/she would feel encouraged to exploit. This should not be a problem, however, if the government always makes sure that it has at least two “equally” desirable locations that it is considering for the new highway, building, park, viaduct, etc., that it wants to build. If potential sellers are aware that the Government has alternatives, they will be persuaded by “market forces” to be reasonable in their price demands. Competition is always the magic that makes market prices “fair” prices.

So if (1) the government is generous enough to make potential land owners WANT to sell their land, and (2) sellers perceive that they are in competition for the opportunity to benefit from the government’s compensation generosity, then it should always be able to obtain the property it needs to promote the general welfare at a reasonable price, without resorting to coercion.

What I don’t get is why the Democrats have not recognized the extraordinary opportunity that this whole issue offers to them. The Republicans love to wrap their identity around issues like flag burning. If the Democrats were to wrap their identity around a Constitutional Amendment that absolutely forbids federal, state, or local “takings” EXCEPT IN THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, they would be able to present themselves as the defenders of the little guy against the unholy alliance of government & business. Duhhh!

(The most obvious reasons for making an exception would be (1) a pressing national security emergency or (2) when the actions of speculators have diminished the competitiveness of a market that the government wants to participate in.)

James

Any idea why some on the right are trying to reverse the ban on DDT? Is there some company that has a financial incentive for doing this or does this just reflect an irrational hatred of environmental regulation of any kind? I can’t figure this one out. DDT is terrible for birds and fish, at least, and it stays in the environment for a long time. It is less harmful (from what I’ve read, at least) to mammals, but it seriously hurts many other life forms.

Were annual military deaths actually higher during the Clinton years? Sadly, no. However, if you parse your words just right, you can leave that impression without technically lying.

The sentence in question appears to be: “Iraq fatalities are less than the rate of total military deaths under Bill Clinton, which averaged almost a thousand a year, and well below the rates of the 1980’s.” Anyone who finds the wording of that sentence devilishly subtle should probably be working in the food service industry.

For once we seem to agree. Your concern about Kelo providing the impetus for developers to run roughshod over homeowners with the aid of City Hall is a real one. My greater concern is that decision rides roughshod over the text of the Constitution.

I would strongly encourage you to check out scotusblog.com for solid legal analysis on Supreme Court cases. There are now discussion boards that contain commentary, often from those that submitted the briefs or argued the cases in front of the Supreme Court. Other participants include noted law professors from both sides. Hands down the best resource for commentary on any major decision, unless you prefer a partisan tilt built into the commentary.

Is Malaria Foundation International a tool of the capitalist running dogs?

Has Malaria Foundation International called for a resumption in use of DDT as a pesticide in farming? I would be surprised if they had as such use of DDT hastens the development of resistance in mosquitos and thus makes it less useful in combatting malaria. But if you have a reference do share.

Forgive the double post if I indeed did, but after 10 or so minutes my post had not shown up.

If you go to this wikipedia article, you’ll get a MUCH better sourced history of DDT that covers more than one relatively tiny land mass of Sri Lanka. The article explains that there was effectively a world ban on DDT in that countries were threatened with having their aid cut or faced sanctions if they continued DDT use which Western powers did not agree with.

According to the article, even in Africa where DDT was sometimes less effective, countries that reverted to 1950/60s style of mass spraying of DDT have lowered their rates of malaria much faster than those that don’t, giving strong evidence that DDT should be in wide spread use, not shot down by EU sanctions.

J F Beck over at Tim Lambert’s site points out that one of the definitions of ban is “Practical denunciation, prohibition, or outlawry, not formally pronounced, as that of society or public opinion.” According to the article, there certainly was, at least in one defintion of the word, a ban.

jet, the Wikipedia article is just a rehash of Africa Fighting Malaria’s dishonest stuff. I have provided sources for everything I have written, whereas you won’t find that for the Wikipedia article.

DDT is not banned, no matter what definition you use because it is still used in countries containing billions of people.

Tim,
Were the EU sanctions against Uganda the equiavalent of a ban or not? If they weren’t, what level of reprisal would be needed to qualify as a ban?

This is just the most recent case, it would easy to spend all day digging up examples of NGO’s, the UN, and Western powers pressuring malaria stricken third world countries to either not use DDT or restrict that use to indoors.

And why would you assume that just because DDT is banned, it wouldn’t be used (since it works)? Aren’t illegal drugs banned? Organizations (countries, NGO’s, the UN) retaliate against countries who use DDT in a way they don’t prescribe, which certainly is close enough to the definition of “banned” that argueing it is just playing on semantics.

jet, there were no EU sanctions against Uganda.

And giving examples of countires that use DDT sort of undercuts your claim that it is banned.

I don’t buy Scott Lemieux’s argument at all. While it would be nice if the Supreme Court didn’t have to get into the business of making tough decisions on what constitutes public use, the appropriate answer is not to completely neuter that clause in the 5th amendment. An obsession w/ finding easy rules for the court to apply should not override important considerations of justice.

That being said, I have to disagree w/ James. The problem is that when you are building a freeway, you’re talking about hundreds (or even thousands) of property owners. Having two options on the table just does not prevent single hold-outs from extracting unreasonable payment for their property.

So I think its clear that public use should include freeways, but b/c ‘fair value’ can not possibly be fair to all the people who’s property you are seizing, it should not include simple ‘public value’ or (alleged) city revenue. And the court should draw a line. Maybe the line should include some deferrence to the locals. But only some.

Nice equivocation jet.

The Stockholm convention has a specific exemption for DDT for public health. So it is not banned in the sense of there being a law against it. You then claim that there is a de facto ban on it. That claim is refuted by showing that it is still used. So you turn around and say that that doesn’t prove that there isn’t a law against it. No it doesn’t, but we proved that already.

Here’s a little pseudo-psychology. The reason conservatives are so pro-DDT is that they have a hierarchy of how people value. Family, Countrymen, Allies, and Others (or whatever). So it simply follows that birds, fish, and frogs fall well below the Others, and thus screw the frogs, those Others need DDT cause they are human and much more valuable than animals. Spray that shit everywhere, cause those people are dieing.

Liberals tend to value everyone as equal and have long observed that in order to preserve the environment people must be constrained in their activities. And since a liberal would never use DDT to protect himself from malaria, so follows an Other shouldn’t use DDT either.