DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**kristloken** · 09-30-2006, 07:00 AM

Well...you could make the case that building a Wal Mart is "for the public good."
Let's say that those corporatistas down in Bettonville decide to plop one of their stores in your town. Your house and back yard are needed in order to create a 500-car mega parking lot. You refuse, but town officials step in, and argue that because Wal Mart offers cheaper goods than the other stores, it will lead to a lot of purchases, and in turn more tax revenue that can be used to help the town. But in reality, they are just helping to put up another store that hires people for minimum wage and no health-care (forcing you, the tax-payer to pay for their welfare and emergancy needs). Why should a town have the right to take your house just to build another Wal Mart? This ruling will only benefit corporations and screw the prinicipal of private property. Condemning people's land for parks and highways is one thing (and skyscrapers and stadiums are a gray area, considering Manhattan's density and the lack of open space) because those things WILL benefit the public, but condemning property to give money to private entities is wrong.

09-30-2006, 07:00 AM	#5
kristloken Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 475 Senior Member	Well...you could make the case that building a Wal Mart is "for the public good." Let's say that those corporatistas down in Bettonville decide to plop one of their stores in your town. Your house and back yard are needed in order to create a 500-car mega parking lot. You refuse, but town officials step in, and argue that because Wal Mart offers cheaper goods than the other stores, it will lead to a lot of purchases, and in turn more tax revenue that can be used to help the town. But in reality, they are just helping to put up another store that hires people for minimum wage and no health-care (forcing you, the tax-payer to pay for their welfare and emergancy needs). Why should a town have the right to take your house just to build another Wal Mart? This ruling will only benefit corporations and screw the prinicipal of private property. Condemning people's land for parks and highways is one thing (and skyscrapers and stadiums are a gray area, considering Manhattan's density and the lack of open space) because those things WILL benefit the public, but condemning property to give money to private entities is wrong.
	Quote