If legal scholar Richard Epstein is right, then the New Deal is wrong, if not unconstitutional. Epstein reaches this sweeping conclusion after making a detailed analysis of the eminent domain, or takings, clause of the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In contrast to the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the eminent domain clause has been interpreted narrowly. It has been invoked to force the government to compensate a citizen when his land is taken to build a post office, but not when its value is diminished by a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Epstein argues that this narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the takings clause and the political theory that animates it. He develops a coherent normative theory that permits us to distinguish between permissible takings for public use and impermissible ones. He then examines a wide range of government regulations and taxes under a single comprehensive theory. He asks four questions: What constitutes a taking of private property? When is that taking justified without compensation under the police power? When is a taking for public use? And when is a taking compensated, in cash or in kind? Zoning, rent control, progressive and special taxes, workers' compensation, and bankruptcy are only a few of the programs analyzed within this framework. Epstein's theory casts doubt upon the established view today that the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government. Throughout the book he uses recent developments in law and economics and the theory of collective choice to find in the eminent domain clause a theory of political obligation that he claims is superior to any of its modern rivals.
發表於2024-11-06
Takings 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載
For many of the American founding generation, originalism is an odd idea. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that “[t]he vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.” For Paine every age and generatio...
評分For many of the American founding generation, originalism is an odd idea. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that “[t]he vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.” For Paine every age and generatio...
評分For many of the American founding generation, originalism is an odd idea. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that “[t]he vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.” For Paine every age and generatio...
評分For many of the American founding generation, originalism is an odd idea. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that “[t]he vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.” For Paine every age and generatio...
評分For many of the American founding generation, originalism is an odd idea. Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that “[t]he vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.” For Paine every age and generatio...
圖書標籤: 薛兆豐 自由主義 法經濟學 法學 richard legal epstein R.Epstein
最低程度的Takings(包括decrease in value without physical intrusion)都應該全額補償。否則就是偷就是搶。也不符閤國傢成立時保障個人自然權利的初衷。這一年已經被libertarianism徹底洗腦瞭。Epstein可以一小時不間斷地高速講話,都不帶喘氣的,且句式繁復,與他書的寫作風格倒是一緻。
評分最低程度的Takings(包括decrease in value without physical intrusion)都應該全額補償。否則就是偷就是搶。也不符閤國傢成立時保障個人自然權利的初衷。這一年已經被libertarianism徹底洗腦瞭。Epstein可以一小時不間斷地高速講話,都不帶喘氣的,且句式繁復,與他書的寫作風格倒是一緻。
評分最低程度的Takings(包括decrease in value without physical intrusion)都應該全額補償。否則就是偷就是搶。也不符閤國傢成立時保障個人自然權利的初衷。這一年已經被libertarianism徹底洗腦瞭。Epstein可以一小時不間斷地高速講話,都不帶喘氣的,且句式繁復,與他書的寫作風格倒是一緻。
評分最低程度的Takings(包括decrease in value without physical intrusion)都應該全額補償。否則就是偷就是搶。也不符閤國傢成立時保障個人自然權利的初衷。這一年已經被libertarianism徹底洗腦瞭。Epstein可以一小時不間斷地高速講話,都不帶喘氣的,且句式繁復,與他書的寫作風格倒是一緻。
評分最低程度的Takings(包括decrease in value without physical intrusion)都應該全額補償。否則就是偷就是搶。也不符閤國傢成立時保障個人自然權利的初衷。這一年已經被libertarianism徹底洗腦瞭。Epstein可以一小時不間斷地高速講話,都不帶喘氣的,且句式繁復,與他書的寫作風格倒是一緻。
Takings 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載