Hacker News Reader

These are peoples homes, land, and likely history. Demolishing that without the blessing of the owners is ridiculous.

I just can't see how that is comparable to bondholder holdouts.

It's not morally comparable, which is an essential part of my point. I think perhaps my comment is inspiring kneejerk reactions as though I was defending this instance of eminent domain, but it was a response to the direct parent, which was attacking something much broader than this instance.

Coordination problems preventing people from making collective progress are real, and mechanisms for eminent domain exist to deal with those real problems, is all I'm saying.

That is independent of whether some holdouts are righteous or not in particular circumstances.

To repeat, please interpret my comments in the context of what I am responding to, not just the article link.

I think the issue is that people think they actually "own" property, when in fact they merely rent it from the state.

It's dressed up with fancy words and paperwork, but when the State has a better use for it than you having it, they will find a way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com