> Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason.
I disagree. The gov forced businesses to shut down (1). That is not the same as preventing potential revenue (2).
(1) requires just compensation. (2) doesn't.
> If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth?
If the code is in place prior to your business' operation, then no. If a new law forces a new code that renders an existing contract of yours void, I would see a case for compensation as the gov passed the law for the benefit of the public.
> If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also?
This is an example of (2) above. The gov isn't forcing your business shut. A policy has prevented customers from reaching you, but your business is still free to operate.
> If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that?
No private property was seized. No compensation owed.
> Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened.
Quite literally we're in record inflation times. Some of that is due to supply side constraints, but a whole bunch of it was due to the three trillion pumped into the economy to prevent an economic contraction.
> You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater
You do. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
> We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale.
We have laws in place to restrict freedoms. We cannot ignore these same laws when they prescribe a remedy for seizure of non state property by the state.
I disagree. The gov forced businesses to shut down (1). That is not the same as preventing potential revenue (2).
(1) requires just compensation. (2) doesn't.
> If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth?
If the code is in place prior to your business' operation, then no. If a new law forces a new code that renders an existing contract of yours void, I would see a case for compensation as the gov passed the law for the benefit of the public.
> If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also?
This is an example of (2) above. The gov isn't forcing your business shut. A policy has prevented customers from reaching you, but your business is still free to operate.
> If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that?
No private property was seized. No compensation owed.
> Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened.
Quite literally we're in record inflation times. Some of that is due to supply side constraints, but a whole bunch of it was due to the three trillion pumped into the economy to prevent an economic contraction.
> You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater
You do. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
> We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale.
We have laws in place to restrict freedoms. We cannot ignore these same laws when they prescribe a remedy for seizure of non state property by the state.