Seems entirely fine. The land, the standard of living, all of this has value because of others doing a lot of work to keep it so. Once you’ve bought something you can’t free ride on the rest of society doing economically useful work. Eminent domain exists as a concept because we recognize this fact.

The state needs to do things in order for its residents to prosper and you can’t nail-house these things to oblivion. Well, you can, but others will disagree.

▲

coffeefirst an hour ago | parent | next [-]

When people wonder where the anti-AI movement comes from, I want you to look right here.

They said they’d take your jobs, they forced families out of their homes, they gave you the worst electric bills you’ve ever seen, and if you pushed back on any of this they called you “Luddite” or “meat LLM.” And all this, it was said, seems fine.

That pendulum is gonna swing hard.

▲

bob1029 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem a lot of land owners would have with this argument is that there is no such thing as a free ride. Property taxes exist in the real world. Most are already paying fairly for access to the services they receive.

At some point the growth will have to slow down. If you are in a position where multigenerational households are being destroyed to make way for vast suburban and data center developments, perhaps it's time to pump the brakes a little bit.

	▲	arjie 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Paying for the services you receive includes the eminent-domain rule usable for others. It is the backstop to prevent nail-housing. And the existence of a point where the growth needs to slow down does not mean we are near it now. I do not believe we are. In fact, yes, vast housing developments and datacenters actually are important to American prosperity and a few households cannot indefinitely hold the rest of society hostage. I believe we will, in my lifetime, restart heavy energy projects, extra-large housing projects, and more industry. This will be done over the protests of many people who, having benefited from prior periods of economic growth, oppose growth and prosperity. And the resulting society will be better for most. And this is particularly critical since it will be most beneficial for the young.

▲

dickersnoodle 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm sure it seems "entirely fine" to you but the people being forcibly moved off their land have a very different reaction. I guess it comes down to who gets the gold mine and who gets the shaft...

▲

MaxikCZ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What? Free ride after I bought something is not allowed? I have to be productive first to buy it, the purchased item is the result of my work, not something I have aquired a right to be productive about later.

+ theres still a lot of maintenance and other expenses going on making it definetly not free ride, I dont understand your position at all.