So a man is on a long flight, sitting next to an attractive woman he doesn't know. The inflight movie is Indecent Proposal.
After the movie, he turns to the woman and says, "Makes you think, doesn't it?"
"Given the choice, do you think you'd sleep with a stranger for a million dolllars?"
She thought it over and said, "That's a lot of money, and I could use it to do great things, you know what? Yes, yes I would"
The man nodded, "Would you sleep with me, for $50?"
She shot him an angry look and said, 'What kind of woman do you take me for?".
He said, 'Oh, we've established that, now we're just haggling over the price."
When you say that the state is justified in taking people's land against their will, on terms chosen by the state, you lose any right to say you're being treated unfairly.
They either should have the right or they shouldn't. Pick one.
I agree and disagree. At some point if we're going to say land ownership is a definitie and the government has no right to step in you wouldn't be driving to work because a highway woudln't have been built, you woudln't have power to your home because power lines couldn't be placed, etc.
Believe me, I hate government intrusion in our lives, I value freedom and rights but at the end of the day if property owenrs can hold out and say I want a billion Dollars nothing will ever get done.
That said I do think people should be paid fairly and I do think eminent domain should only be used in situations which are 100% a necessity. How that's decided I'm not sure maybe a public panel of citizens, a survey among neighbors I'm not sure but I think your absolute that property can never be taken isn't really realistic.