« Weisbach: Consumption Taxation is Still Superior to Income Taxation | Main | Jonathan Nash on "Standing and the Precautionary Principle" »

September 19, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00e54ef67fcd8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Epstein Podcast, This Time on Property Rights:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

yong zhao

well,It is no doubt that the government-capital ally would take any of their capacity to earn money. That's what is happening in China now. If the government is granted the power of eminent domain, they must will take advantage of it, especially in the country which have a coercive government.But this circumstance is not the worst of all. There is something even more worse.It seems that people have been locked into that way, which the government arrange us every thing.The more we rely on the government, as well as the corporation, the more we lose what belonged to us before.
For the urbanization,by using the eminent domain is not the only option.Some other countries have already
adopted some other way such as the shareholder program.

Joan A. Conway

I agree with this statement, but the alternative is a shortage of of land for other uses which robs the owners of the property rights.

Landlords' have been doing this for centuries to tenants, when they need the space, land, or tenant's property, they make it into a common area, or a broom closet for electricians.

The buildings were simply not planned well!

Adequate accommodations were modified to take from the tenant for common usage or the betterment of maintaining the building by service employees.

Yong ZHAO

Thank you. Yes, of course. If we look back into the history, the land is always the essential element for economic development and as the fast growing of population, the competition for land has never been stopped. But It doesn't mean these who have no property or the any other third party(probably the government in modern society) can take landlords' land.What I'm saying is that the limits of land is not the problem.We should focus on how to make use of these limited lands without restrain or infringe someone else's property rights.In this point, I suggest that all the arrangement which are trying to handle this problem should be on the base of consensus .Someone may argue that the consent may raise the hand out problem. But the hand out problem is after the problem which option we should to adopt. Only when we adopt the eminent domain option, the hand out would come out.

If we have a good vision and do some more research or designing of the ongoing property or property right system, some other option may just be there. That is a question I'm researching on it now.

Well, there's a professor in history said in a paper that at the beginning or before the United States, some state's authority have already use the planing law to restrict the property owner's building activities.

The comments to this entry are closed.