I believe that I have adequately shown that the subject of the title is false. If we can put that aside I'll try once again to discuss your other questions.
Given that I believe that I also have adequately shown that the subject of the title is false, we can certainly set that aside.
I am only focusing on a defense of rand's discussion of what Constitutional restrictions there are on confiscation of private property by the govt.
The trend began, in my opinion, very early in US history.
Okey doke, before we get into the trend thing, it should first be noted that I was not attempting to defend rand's position of when it started going in that direction. And indeed the trend does not change the fact of what the clear wording says. Thus you could (theoretically) show me a trend starting the year after the Constitution was made, that does not necessarily refute my position, though it would conflict with some of what rand said.
That said, I do disagree with your arguments regarding the start of that trend...
Some examples that I've mentioned of expanding the meaning of the term 'use' in the Fifth Amendment would be the early tobacco roads, which were built and maintained solely to get the barrels of tobacco to the ports for shipment. These roads, unlike most roads, were kept level and rut free and regularly graded to make it easy to roll the kegs.
Building and maintenaince would not be relevant to the issue under discussion, only how the land was acquired to create the roads.
Given the importance of agriculture... specifically tobacco... to the US economy as a whole, I am uncertain why it would not have been a public use to provide a mechanism for easy transport of that commodity. Anyone could use it (them) and it would help drive that industry. The fact that it would have specific reqs show that it is something relatively unique and its scale would be that of public works.
A mall is not an industry, and provides nothing to the general public except more of something they can create for themselves, and will create for themselves. Was there anything that would point to it as being a unique feature and of a scale that would be public works such that individual developers could not have done it?
By the way, how much land was actually confiscated... homes and all... in the tobacco road development?
the rights of Eminent Domain were used in aquiring much of the property. Whether it was private homes or other property is not important IMHO.
Once again, Boston Harbor would not suggest anything historical, only recent. As such, it would fit with rand's position as well as my own. On this specific issue of what powers they used I really didn't see confiscation mentioned. Was it in that article you linked to? Not to be a bother but if you could pull up the relevant quote, I'd appreciate it. I wholly admit I have not read it carefully, and might have missed something. So I'm not blaming you and am asking for a favour.
The trend in acceleration of expanding the definitions of use as originally envisioned began with the concept of Urban Renewal during the post WWII era, around 1950 or so. The reason it's going on is probably a mixture of motives, one the increasing disintegration of major urban areas and inner cities in the US, the disruption of the tax base as the suburbs grow and greed.
Well I am not going to disagree with that assessment at all. Sounds reasonable to me. Intriguingly that would almost fit with rand's original assertion that it was linked to socialism (which he used left to describe). These programs were considered socialist in nature and many were, though I believe their exension into this realm (under discussion) was fascist in nature and not liberal nor socialist in concept.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
