Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist

Pajamas Media ^ | 09/15/2015 | Rick Moran

[DoughtyOne]

I did not address the issue of eminent domain, so using my comment here as if I had, sets up an implication that isn't true.  It's use is out of context.  It's not strictly honest.

I addressed the issue of bankruptcy.

If you wanted my views on eminent domain, you should have requested them.  I'm not convinced clarity was your goal.

Good businessmen shouldn’t utilize every right they have working within the legal system that they operate in.  /s  (fits with it's contextual use in my comments)

Damn straight. If you own a house on land that Trump wants, why SHOULDN'T he use the power of the state to force you to sell to him? It's just good business, dammit!

(do I even need the /sarc?)

Eminent Domain

I grew up on a 120 acre farm 4.5 miles due west of Diamond Grove Missouri.  The farm was about 1.5 miles due west of the George Washington Carver farm.  I visited it a number of times as a youth.  It helped me to understand man's inhumanity to man.

My family owned that farm for more than seventeen years.  I went to live there when I was three years old.  My earliest memories are from the days on that farm.  I haven't stepped foot on the property in 50 years.  It's still a place I cherish.  I look it up on Google every so often.  I watch encroachment from 1,500 miles away.  I don't like it.

The forest across the country road is gone.  Parcels around the farm have cut other large farms down to size.  Buildings have come down on it.  Some large grading was initiated to enlarge the pond.  Otherwise it looks the same from space.  The same forestry exists on it.  The same pastures are there.  I know the flowers that grow there.  I know the make-up of the soil.  I know where the ground goes very muddy when it rains.  I know the perfect look of new snow before little bird feet show up.  I know where the berry patches are.  I remember gathering eggs, running into water moccasins and copperheads.  I remember the place where I fell off a pony I was breaking.  I remember going home from the hospital.  I remember climbing and falling out of trees.  I remember not being able to see, and coming home from the hospital again.  I remember family dynamics that played out there on holidays.  I remember my grandfather when he had an inner ear infection and thought the tractor was falling on him.  I remember the neighbors from miles away coming to help out.  I remember sitting in the darkness under a light and wondering if he would ever be the same.  Sounds like a contradiction in terms unless you've been in the middle of nowhere at night with one light on.  I remember summer nights sleeping outside under the stars with fireflies.  I remember being on the back 40 and hearing our nearest neighbor a mile away yelling, "Goll dernit" when his tractor would hit a large rock and twist the wheel in his hands.  I remember the squirrels flying in the darkness to a tree that was no longer there, and falling on the wood-pile.  I remember the tree with a big loop in it, caused by a lightening strike.  I know how the rain approaches from the south.  I know what the sky looks like when a tornado goes by.  I know what the water tower looked like from 4.5 miles, knowing the first grade girl I liked lived near the base of it.  I know where the hidden grape vines are.  I know where my childhood pony died.  I remember pulling out other horses stuck in the mud.  I remember driving the family tractor at five years of age so the older people could harvest the hay.  I know every inch of it.  I'd love to own it again some day.  Perhaps that's just human nature, or perhaps it's simply a flaw in my personality, not having let completely go after all these years.

I do understand the concept of family property.  I do understand the concept of ownership, the "own domain" the "king of the realm" aspects of this issue.  I respect them.

Lets face it, we all have our own dreams, and we are entitled to them.  As much as possible, those dreams should be supported.  Neighbors, communities, cities, counties, states, and the federal government should recognize them and avoid infringing on them as much as possible.  And those last few words are where that breaks down.

We understand the concept of railway lines, highways, freeways, and city through-ways.  We understand large sporting venues.  We understand certain redevelopment projects.  And when I say we understand, we understand how eminent domain applies.

In many instances a new project in one way or another requires certain individual rights to be infringed on for the good of a much larger body of people.  And on the surface of that, is is ominious.

We understand a freeway right of way need, so that millions of people can use the highways.  We transport goods across them.  It's a broad service to business, private people, and the nation at large.

In the instance you describe, as I understand it a business project had obtained all the land it needed except one last plot.  The land owners were offered up to four times the value of their land to sell.  They refused.  Some folks think that was their right, and others think they were offered a more than fair sum to ease their loss.

I understand both arguments.  Further, I also recognize some things that go unsaid on all this.

Most folks opposing oppose it based on the idea these people owned it.  It's their right to keep the property.  Nobody should be able to break that bond, or choice.  I'm sympathetic to that.

If we're talking about Lord Plushbottom seeking to create his own perfect estate at the expense of this landowner, I am dead set against that sort of thing.

If we were talking about solely profit motive and things limited to that, I would also be against it, but that generally isn't the case.  Yes initial profit does exist, but there are other considerations too.

A very large group of people may be employed on that property.  Further, if that property is created to provide a service to the local, regional, or extended public community, we could be talking about the dreams of millions of people, not just one family.

If a large hotel were build on that property, you would of course have initial investor or development profits.  If that property were develop in part as a hotel, that property would feed the dreams of every family having a member who worked there.  We may be talking about literally thousands of family dreams there.  Then there's the guests that would use the property.  Over the years tens of millions of guests could use that hotel.  There are a lot of broad based dreams on the line.

If one day I were able to purchase back the farm I grew up on, should I be able to stop dead in it's tracks the hopes and dreams of millions of people, because I wanted to live my one single dream?

Should I be able to prevent the creation of thousands of jobs?  Should I be able to prevent the enjoyment of millions more?

I can see rather decent arguments on either side of this.

Frankly, I'd take the four times the market value, find another dream, and allow thousands and millions of others to fulfill their dreams too.  I wouldn't particularly like it, but life isn't made up of every one of our dreams being fulfilled.

Life is all about acquisition and loss.  Sometimes our loss can facilitate acquisition for thousands of others.

Sometimes our loss will facilitate the happiness of just one other person.  Nobody said life was perfect.

Along the way there are speed-bumps, and we deal with them.

[DoughtyOne]

He’s not the only one with that perception.

It needs to be addressed.

[papertyger]

He would be conservative on some issues, liberal on others.

I don't have a problem with that.

While I advocate for conservative principles, I believe "consent of the governed" an even higher principle.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

My intent was not to take you out of context - did not realize you were referring to bankruptcy alone, rather than all of the activities noted in the article, and I was focused on the eminent domain angle.

As far as the use of eminent domain for private projects that may (or may not) have some public benefit, I disagree wholeheartedly. I understand the arguments, but I believe that the power of eminent domain—that is, the power to forcibly seize private property against the will of the property owner—is among the most drastic of powers held by the government, and should be used in the most limited way possible. Obviously, there are situations where it is unavoidable (if a highway is being built, it cannot just be built around anyone who lives in its path), but building a hotel is not one of them. In a free society, the fact that others may benefit if I give up my property to a developer should be of no consequence, if I do not want to give up said property.

[DoughtyOne]

And look, I think many people will agree with you.

The point I was trying to make is that it goes beyond the developers.

Yes, one person has a dream.

Aren’t the 1950 employees of the hotel entitled to a dream to be funded by their employment?

If that one property ends their dream, is that reasoned?

We’re talking the interests of 1,500 families compared to the interests of one family.

I don’t see either interest here as evil. I think there are valid points on both sides.

Would a guy have to be inherently evil, to think the project should be able to prevail.

Some will say yes as I believe you do. I’m not as convinced as you are about it.

I appreciate the response.

I honestly don’t like these situations, because they are a pain in the neck. For me there are compelling arguments for both sides.

It does wreak of something Liberal, but here we are talking about a productive member of society trying to create a lot of jobs, and even be rather fair with the home-owner. 400% property value isn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I appreciate the response as well, and I realize that it can be a difficult issue at times. But as I’ve thought about it over time, I keep coming back to the importance of property rights. Yes, the potential workers of a planned hotel should have the opportunity for those jobs, but I don’t think that the potential jobs justifies forcibly taking property. And yes, most rational property owners would take the inflated offer from the developer (just look at what happens to property prices in neighborhoods where there are even rumors of developer interest). But, to me, if property rights mean anything, they mean that you have the right to be the irrational crank who just wants to stay in your house.

And I think it’s worth noting that, without eminent domain, developers still have options. They can keep trying to up the price (may work, may not, may be economically feasible, may not). They can move the project slightly. They can build around the holdout. It doesn’t have to kill the project, and if the project is projected to be profitable and economically important enough, developers (and local officials) typically find a way to get it done.

[MichaelCorleone]

That’s not how you explained it before. But, it is what it is.

Maybe you should support another candidate then.

[driftless2]

Ours.

[loveliberty2]

"There’s no such thing as “crony capitalism.” Only UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that attracts and invites business through the feds unconstitutional bribes and interference in the free market."

Thank you!!! Been waiting for a long time for someone to make that observation. Republicans like Palin who began using the term as a perjorative in criticisms of Obama made a big mistake. The only thing their preferred semantic tool accomplished was to sully a perfectly good term in the minds of uninformed citizens and to mask the real problem, which was unethical elected officials who misused their delegated power.

[Jim W N]

God bless you. At least one other person in the crowd gets it. Hope there’s more.

[Tupelo]

“He didn’t need to. He paid others to cast those votes for him.”

I have never seen that. Who did he bribe? You do know that bribing a public official is illegal in all 50 states and Washing D c don’t you?
Please provide evidence. Also please note, I am not asking for PROOF as we normally see when public officials are questioned about their graft and corruption. Just something in the way of EVIDENCE.
If no evidence, all we have is here is innuendo.
Right???

[Conscience of a Conservative]

“I gave to many people before this — before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me.”

Doesn’t get much clearer than that.

[papertyger]

Doesn’t get much clearer than that.

Sure it does. The distinction between political contributions and bribery is well defined and understood. You are making it your mission to conflate the two.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

I didn’t use the word “bribery,” and I certainly didn’t say Trump did anything illegal. All I said is that Trump hasn’t had to cast his own votes, because he paid people to do that for him. Which is exactly what he has done.

[papertyger]

I didn’t use the word “bribery,” and I certainly didn’t say Trump did anything illegal.

No, but you've walked, talked, and swum "like a duck."

[Conscience of a Conservative]

No, I’ve said that Trump (as he himself has acknowledged) was a pay-for-access crony capitalist.

[TBP]

His business is built on crony capitalism, which is why he supports the godawful Kelo v. City of New Britain disaster "100 percent."

[TBP]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-the-ultimate-crony-capitalist/