The recent SCOTUS decision is an opportunity

[blurp]

The recent court decision regarding the taking of private property is actually a WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY.

We now have the chance for local governments to effectively nationalize industries. Think about all those warehouses, factories, and other resources presently not being used for the public good. If a city wanted to, they could take the property of a local industry and give it to the workers. We could then effectively create socialism easily on the local level.

I'm not talking about communism. Communism is a dead-end philosophy. I'm talking about a system that would genuinely help the workers and give them opportunity. It would also force corporations to contribute to the public good rather than to themselves. The threat of nationalization (localization?) would accomplish this.

The recent decision should make all this possible.

Comments?

[candy]

1. What have you been smokin'? It's all about money !!!!!!

Always has been,always will be.

[blurp]

2. But in a place where the poor outnumber the rich....

Just get enough of them to vote in the right city commissioners.

There are plenty of places with the numbers.

[annabanana]

6. You might be right...

It sure as hell would be interesting to give it a shot..
:popcorn:

[politicaholic]

7. Downtown Detroit is a cesspool and they wouldn't even do it there!

Everything has value. Land, buildings no matter how delapitated, and most of all the grease on the palms of local officials.

You can try. Your vision is wonderful. But, alas, I hope you're an excellent fund raiser.

[rocktivity]

3. It's already started a rumble on the Jersey shore

Less than an hour ago, I saw a news story about the town of Long Branch considering siezing all the shorefront homes and re-opening the beach to the public. This could throw the Asbury Park shorefront back into play as well.

And there's a terraced high-rise apartment building I pass on the Garden state parkway that has been dark, cold and empty for YEARS, and I think, "Why doesn't someone put PEOPLE in it?"

:headbang:
rocknation

[blurp]

4. Exactly

Let the people take it and use it.

[AndyTiedye]

16. They Have to Pay for All That Land

Where are they going to get the money to do that?

To seize private property without just compensation violates the
final clause of the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

I'm sure that town doesn't have that kind of money.

[blurp]

18. Who defines "just compensation"?

Where are they going to get the money to do that?

To seize private property without just compensation violates the
final clause of the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

I'm sure that town doesn't have that kind of money.

I say $0.00 is just compensation enough and an elected judge that agrees with the people might just allow this.

Besides, if you wanted you could simply tax them at a high rate for a period of time and use their own money to take the property!

[mongo]

20. WTF?

I say $0.00 is just compensation enough and an elected judge that agrees with the people might just allow this.

Besides, if you wanted you could simply tax them at a high rate for a period of time and use their own money to take the property!

So, we let the government become the robberbarons instead. Great.

[moddemny]

29. "Who defines "just compensation"?"

Just compensation is fair market value. What the owner would get for it if they put it up for sale the regular way. If the property has to be taken for a fair public use (and not some backward communist scheme) a number slightly higher the FMV would be more fair to remove any doubts the property is being stolen and help prevent the law from being abused. Without actually putting up the property up for sale FMV can be determined most of the time by an experienced licensed appraiser (two appraisals to make it safe, appraisals are not always perfect either).


As for the rest of your reply:

"I say $0.00 is just compensation enough and an elected judge that agrees with the people might just allow this.

Besides, if you wanted you could simply tax them at a high rate for a period of time and use their own money to take the property!"

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on DU and doesn't even warrant the time to write an in depth reply.

[moddemny]

30. .......

[noiretextatique]

5. for once

i agree with you...at least about this decision. however, i do think some concerns about the decision are legitimate, but...as i look outside my office in west oakland, the "blight" i see is all abandoned commerical buildings.
i do think this ruling might help this area...the abandoned buildings certainly aren't doing a thing for it.

[tex-wyo-dem]

8. This decision changed very little...

other than underscoring that local municipalities, cities, states, etc. have juristiction regarding eminent domain.

Your idea, however, is possible :)

[blurp]

9. Then lets do it

What about starting with General Motors or IBM? :)

[Walt Starr]

10. I would oppose that idea with every fiber of my being

Sorry, tha'ts what Big Joe Stalin did. It didn;t wrk in the Soviet Union and it would never fly here.

[The Revolution]

11. This is exactly what I've been thinking!

Actually, I've been thinking about this for a while now. The way to really get Socialism going in this country is to start at the local level. I think of it as "bottom up" Socialism (as opposed to "top down" not to be confused with "belly up" ;)).

I don't know what you would call it either. Its not really nationalization. Maybe municipalization?

The only thing that had me worried was that the courts would find it unconstitutional. Now that they've given their stamp of approval, the door is wide open.

The key now is just to get in power in local government (which is much easier). Then we can really start taking care of business. All these people who bought up all the waterfront property and other nice areas and built their little gated communities to keep poor people away, and all these corporations who move in and choke the life out of the working class might finally get what they have coming.

The corporations and businesses pushing for this made a huge mistake. We've got a golden opportunity here.

[mongo]

14. Yes, I'm sure that your local government can run the Walmart

better than they can.

And since the government now owns the Walmart - all those mom-n-pop stores can be condemmed and turned into parks because they are redundant, and compete for resources with the Govmart.

Great way to consolidate resources (and wealth) into yet fewer hands.

[The Revolution]

17. Probably

But then again I would define "better" as paying the employees a living wage and providing benefits, rather than basing it off the profit margin or something like that. :)

There are a couple of ways we could go about this. We could take over Walmart and have the government run it, or just bulldoze it and build a park. So we could have the mom-n-pop stores around still, or we can just hire mom-n-pop to work at the Govmart or other store. There are several ways to go about this.

And what we're talking about here is consolidating resources and wealth into more hands, not fewer. The people of the city would own the resources. Yes, I realize it means that the people controlling the local government have control over a vast range of resources, but we can surely come up with ways to deal with that. For instance, writing the laws so that the city council (or whatever) has limited power over the government controlled business and industry. Maybe we could set up a separate rotating council to manage that piece, and they could be elected by lot (like jury duty) rather than by ballot. I'm just throwing out ideas here.

[mongo]

19. So now we'll let the government tell us what we can do with our lives

too?

or we can just hire mom-n-pop to work at the Govmart or other store.

Great. Good thing my parents scrimped and saved so I could have a college education, and I worked and scrimped and saved for 18 years so I could throw everything I owned into my own business.

Where is the incentive to succeed? Where is free enterprise? One of the biggest problems under capitalism is that it is not free enterprise, and government favors the biggest players. How will this be any different under your system?

What you're suggesting is great for a Rainbow Gathering, but doesn't work in real life. Look at the Soviet Union.

Maybe we could set up a separate rotating council to manage that piece, and they could be elected by lot (like jury duty) rather than by ballot.

Yes, but only qualified people would be put into positions thay can manage, right? What about the great unwashed masses?

Look, I'm more of a socialist than most. I belive that there is a strong national interest in socializing a few industries - the electric grid for sure. We were much better off with regulated monopolies than with deregulation - look at what happened in Ca., with the municipal power companies almost being put out of business with skyrocking prices under deregulation. And even under the system of regulated monopolies, there was no incentive to build future capacity as monopolies were told exactly how much they could charge for their services and had to make their assets go the extra mile - not to mention the problems encountered with NIMBY for new transmission lines.

[The Revolution]

21. We're the government!

What I'm talking about here is more of a pure democracy concept. The government is not some 3rd party entity bossing everyone around, the people are the government.

I understand that people have put a lot of work into their own business. These small shops and such aren't really the problem, and that's why I said we don't have to do anything to get rid of them. Even if we had to, would you be willing to give it up if it meant that we could end poverty a create a society where everyone is truly equal? Wouldn't it be worth it?

This isn't the Soviet Union. The USSR wasn't democratic, this will be. That makes all the difference in the world. In fact, I would say you can nationalize all you want, but if you don't have a democracy, it can't be socialism. The entire basis and theory behind socialism requires democracy.

I'm not sure where you get "only qualified people" from. I would want everyone to have a chance to be involved. Under socialism, pretty much everyone should be educated and trained and be able to make informed decisions. Now of course, everyone is different, and it might be that some people wouldn't be that great at serving on some kind of business council. That's why we would have multiple people on these councils and have them serve short terms. And I suppose people could opt out if they really wanted to.

I think we're looking at this completely different ways. I know I'm being optimistic. Of course there are problems along the way, but I believe we can find a way around them.

[mongo]

28. You're describing a star trek like utopian society

And yeah, it would be great. I just don't think that we're there as a society yet.

We can barely get a congress to make any laws that make sense. Do you really think we can let most of our society run on elected or appointed commitees? Humans tend to be motivated by fear, lust, greed and power - not by some grand humanistic intetions.

As far as it being a democracy, well Saddam was elected too. If we consolidate money, resources and power into the government, it would become a self-perpetuating monster.

And as far as everyone being truly equal, why would most stive for success? I worked some pretty stressfull jobs as a systems analyst. On call 24/7, drive accross town at 2am (before dialup), responsible for millions in cash transactions type jobs where you just don't fuck up. Lots of pressure, lots of responsibility. As a project leader, I was responsible for other peoples work too. If it weren't for the economic benefit, why would I do that shit for a living? It's much more comfortable here, running a cash register and posting on DU.

After college and before my career, I spent some time as a bum. I seen generational welfare, women who try to get themselves pregnant in a one night stand for more money, etc. There is already a portion of our society that is content to survive on as little effort as possible. Why take away the incentive for everyone else?

In my mind, the biggest thing we could do as a nation to level the playing field would be free college for everyone. Right now, if you are dirt poor you can get grants, but they will only pay for a community college type education (college lite). If entry to Yale was only based on SAT scores and other acheivements, the best and brightest would get in regardless of economic background. People with intelligence and ambition would rise to the top, and idiots like GW Bush would be going to trade school, or his local community college because that is all he would qualify for.

[The Revolution]

31. It will take a lot of work.

I know we aren't ready for straight Socialism yet...but I do think we can get there eventually.

I think a big problem with congress is that corporate influence gets in the way of passing laws that make sense. Getting corporations out of our government will be an important early step.

This idea that people won't strive for success under a Socialist system is an argument I've heard before. My answer to that would be that people are driven by more than financial incentives. People certainly want to be paid well for their work, but success itself is also rewarding. People strive to succeed because they enjoy the feeling of accomplishment. Now, if there are jobs that are so stressful or horrible that no one would do them if they didn't need the money, then I think improving working conditions is better than an economic system that forces people to take undesirable jobs.

I know we have people that abuse the welfare system now. I don't think it will be that big of a problem under Socialism though. When everyone has equal opportunity, it will be easier for people to make something of themselves. Perhaps one way to prevent abuse would be to only provide the essentials (home, food, water, heat, etc.) If you want any money for luxury items (cable TV, Internet, video games, etc.) then you'll have to work for it (with exceptions for the elderly, disabled, or those who are really unable to work).

Free college for everyone is something we should definitely do. As you said, it will make sure that people can get a quality education despite their economic background. As more people are educated, society will shift to the left, making Socialism much much much easier to implement.

It will definitely take a lot of work to transform society in the ways I've been talking about, but I think we can do it. Its fine to start small, but I think some time soon we are going to have to start going on the offensive in the class war that's been raging for some time now.

[mongo]

32. You certainly are a dreamer

and I can admire that.


I think a big problem with congress is that corporate influence gets in the way of passing laws that make sense. Getting corporations out of our government will be an important early step.

And here I can agree with you 100% - although corporations can't donate to political campaigns now, their principals certainly can, and employees can even be strong armed into donation through work sponsored PACS. Part of the reason that corporate pay is so high is so that there is money to throw around for political influence. Corporations can hire lobbyists to influence Washington on their behalf too.

I do have to say that ultimately, I'm a capitalist. I am the president of a corporation, and like me, most corporations in the US are small , closely held entities that are mostly family business.

[mongo]

12. Ok

we'll start with your house, or apartment. I'm sure that you have enough space for 3 or 4 homeless people in there - and a sewing shop for a means of production for them.

Your dwelling is being underutilized comrade.

[blurp]

13. As long as it's democratic, what's wrong with it?

we'll start with your house, or apartment. I'm sure that you have enough space for 3 or 4 homeless people in there - and a sewing shop for a means of production for them.

Your dwelling is being underutilized comrade.

Hint: Democratic Party = the party that supports democracy

If the people want this and vote for it, what's wrong with the idea?

[mongo]

15. Our whole constitution is based on the premise of individual

freedom and personal liberty. Now you want all property rights to become the control of the government.

Where is there any incentive to succeed in your system? The ruling parties would become more corrupt than they already are, as individuals would now have to swear allegiance or bribe officials to be put in positions of power.

If the government owns a business, are they going to get rid of all the competition? They have to assure the security of their workers, don't they?

I'll see you in line to buy shoes at the Govmart.

[blurp]

25. It's based on DEMOCRACY and is a living document

Remember that the constitution is a living document.

Sure in the beginning there was a lot more emphasis on individual rights, including private property. But the 30's changed much of that.

This ruling is a simple extension of the rulings in the 30s that gave more power to regulate the economy to the government. Look at the history of the interstate commerce clause. Before FDR, the court ruled that only literal interstate commerce could be regulated. FDR changed that. Now most of the economy can be regulated by the government and it invokes this clause to do so.

This ruling is just a simple exention of that those older rulings.

[Make7]

33. What's wrong with it?

If a majority of Americans voted to invade Iraq, what would be wrong with that?

-Make7

[tx_dem41]

22. The SCOTUS decision....turned upside down.

Ahhhh...what a naive world some live in!

[blurp]

23. SCOTUS has said that ANY economic benefit justifies it.

Why not just try it? The court has given us permission!

[tx_dem41]

24. They didn't give "us" permission to do a danged thing. n/t

[blurp]

27. Anyone in a progressive city can now take local industries

If a city believes that it can promote economic development by taking businesses and industries, the court says that is ok.

It just takes a city with a progressive government.

[jody]

26. Absolutely correct. Neocons are upset because it threatens the sacred

nature of private property biased in favor of the haves vs the have-nots that pervades our Constitution.