I don't really understand this point, but I don't think I need to. It is objectively true that some assets are more liquid and easier to value than others; one of the hardest assets to value is a going business concern, and one of the easier assets to value is Manhattan real estate.

Similarly, a (fictitious and nonsensical) eminent domain claim on a portfolio of treasury bills would be inherently fairer than a (fictitious and only slightly less nonsensical) eminent domain claim on Bingo Card Creator; the holder of the bills can easily calculate the fair value of his assets, and Patrick can't.

On a spectrum running:

<-- small business --------------------- treasuries -->

where is a gas station in Manhattan? It's not right next to Bingo Card Creator.

Perhaps I'm biased because my father is a real estate broker and I've heard his stories, but there is a (probably overpaid) profession of people whose only job is to sit down together and dicker over how much commercial real estate should actually sell for. It isn't a T-bill, where you can just ask the computer, or a stock, where you can just look at the transaction for a fungible unit which sold 5 seconds ago, or even a pork belly, which for an agreed upon quality of delicious piggy goodness can be treated as "implements IPorkBelly" and sold quite easily. (Hiring questions: what methods does IPorkBelly offer...)

I agree that CRE isn't t-bills; I point out only that there is a spectrum of liquidity, and that on it, small businesses are to the left of antique furniture and the works of second-tier postminimalist painters. I originally wrote "commercial bonds" instead of treasuries, but realized quickly that someone on HN would write 6 grafs on how the bond markets are opaque, unfair, and intensely susceptible to gamesmanship.

Thomas, you keep focusing on the 'type of private property' where as Patrick, me and others are talking about the benefiting party. The 'type of private property' being seized is IMMATERIAL.

If NYC wanted to build a subway and needed to acquire the gas station, I would be completely on-board with the use of Eminent Domain but that's not what is happening here.

The type of property is not immaterial. A very straightforward bit of intellectual wankery gets you to that point: you own Bingo Card Creator; there is a national Bingo emergency; eminent domain is employed; the US Government pays you $15MM USD. Patrick's a principled guy but I say this as one of his friends that principle is for sale for $15MM.

So now we're just haggling over the price.

Given that we are, it is inherently less fair for seize something for a which a real market value can't be determined.

When you evoke seizure of a software company, you're evoking the image in your mind of a government attempting to value your company. But the market famously doesn't know how to value small businesses. You know you're not getting anything resembling what it's worth.

When you seize a piece of commercial real estate in Manhattan, you can tell me all you want about how shady the NYC CRE market is, but there is a relatively liquid market for NYC CRE. It is less unfair to seize commercial real estate, corporate bonds, t-bills, or proven mineral deposits than it is to seize a business.

But. And please read this next sentence carefully. I agree with you about Columbia. I think this is an abuse of eminent domain.

(Why - oh - why is Thomas talking about this then? Because it's so - f'ing - much - more - interesting than yet another long rant about how the government is evil and I'm ashamed of my country and the weather in December is awful and God really needs to get on top of fixing that).

?? The current discussion is about the abuse of eminent domain, not about the type of property which fall under eminent domain. IMHO, you are not adding much to discussion by bringing up NYC CRE.