Or will signs have to be erected to infrom: “Coastal public access terminates here.” Saltwater spray proof, of course. Should cost a few quid.

I also am interested in the definitions of the width of this corridor; I can think of some places where the rocks and cliffs would require a very wide (and pretty indeterminate at times) corridor. Equally, can those wishing to walk all the way round the coast demand the provision of safe, easily accessible footpaths over some of this wild and difficult terrain?

I know I am being silly, but then so is the proposal. I think all this is just a public statement that, having been made to placate some lunatic somewhere, will be quietly shelved. But as romantic idea, it’s good.

“the market economy needs no apologists and propagandists. It can apply to itself the words of Sir Christopher Wren’s epitaph in St. Paul’s: ‘si monumentum requiris, circumspice.’ (If you seek his monument, look around.)

I paraphrase, “if you seek the villains in the matter, look around.”

It ain’t the government (nor is it the government in any other socialistic redistribution or expansion of powers).

It’s the neighbors. The majority. The government wouldn’t make the move without being put up to it by the rest.

This is particularly evident in certain “takings” in the US (Kelo, f’rexample), where the idea is to get a higher-taxpaying entity onto the property and to, thereby, reduce the burden on the rest.

Unless the Common Purpose Ministry of Truth manages to rewrite all the history books.

http://www.stopcp.com

http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Block-Epstein.mp3

The idea that without ED, we could not have roaods, electricity or whatever does rather seem to overlook the economic incentives that builders of said would provide to persuade landowners. Also, a “fair” price is for the birds: the only way to measure what a fair price is is what is agreed in an open market.

Also, your argument seems to be little more than a form of brute utilitarianism: if the “happiness of the greatest number” is served by bulldozing homes, or whatnot, you seem all in favour of it, and of course, people such as you get to decide how much money is paid for the benighted souls told to get out of the way.

There should be independant oversight by the courts. Landowners can easily keep track of the market value of their property nowadays. Property blight can be mapped.

Which is exactly what this thieveing, lieing, scumbag gummint don’t want. So they have thrown away any pretence of fairness or compensation, and they are showing their teeth.

That’s what this hinges on. Compulsory purchase is just that: purchase. There is no purchase involved with the coastal path, and I’ve laid out my opinion that the law will fail because of ECHR article 1 protocol 1.

“In truth, the real reason why organisations want to use ED is, apart from say the exception of defence, to get something for less than they would get in a market.”

The law doesn’t provide for less than fair value. Of course, your idea of fair may be different to the purchaser’s. For example, you might buy into a company thinking the shares are cheap, the shares fall further, and the company gets taken over at the lower price: your shares are compulsorily purchased at the offer price. Fair value was already determined by the fact that everyone else (or, rather, 90% of the shareholders) thought the offer was fair.

Allowing veto rights to every landowner and shareholder results in complete deadlock. That ridiculous stance may be taken by some who posted here, but the rest of us would rather live in an advanced civilisation with electricity, railways, roads, public limited companies, etc.

Kay writes: “But of course, I forget: YOU think the electricity is more important than the farmer’s property rights. But YOU don’t think a coastal path does override landowner rights. And of course, what YOU want goes, doesn’t it?”

If I use electricity that has been routed through a farmer’s land with his consent, then there is, by definition, no problem. If the land has been expropriated against his will and no compensation paid out, well, I am affectively a beneficiary of stolen goods, Kay. The ends do not justify the means, which is, if one thinks about it, what respecting the person is about.

Practically, however, if an electricity firm wants to make money linking up people to its supplies, then if it wants to put power lines or whatever across a person’s land, they can do so even without eminent domain powers if they agree price. The farmer can be paid a rental, or a share of a road toll, or whatever other installation we are talking about.

In truth, the real reason why organisations want to use ED is, apart from say the exception of defence, to get something for less than they would get in a market. Objecting to this state of affairs is hardly utopian unless contempt for property rights and support of thieving are regarded as mainstream.

Sigh.

So an advanced libertarian civilisation is contingent on smart farmers? I think I might have found a flaw in the system..

You’re welcome.

Silly argument. I assume that if the farmers who objected to such pylons were not properly compensated, you might have a point. But of course farmers who refused to have such pylons on their land might therefore not receive electricity, which is not very smart of them, unless they got their own generators.

Not very convincing response, I am afraid.

Because I have no choice but to use some of the ‘fruits’ of eminent domain I am disqualified from questioning the ethics of it?

“Someone has to judge whether the public benefit to a compulsory purchase is there or not.”

Prove it.

Oh, and for avoidance of doubt, I don’t think a Coastal Path passes the public benefit test even if they were prepared to pay for it.

http://anti-citizen-one.blogspot.com/2008/05/geonomics-geonomics-is.html

“Market Geonomics:
Market Geonomics allows the owner to set the price of their property, and they are taxed at a percentage of that value. However to make sure the price is not set artificially low anyone can buy the property, with a delay (say 2 years for physical). This would solve a lot of planning permission problems and speed up compulsory purchase etc. and ensure a much more efficient utilisation of land. For intellectual property this would ensure much more sub-licensing of patents in order to make the patent work, instead of using it as an attempt to block competitors.”