[j-pb]

In every dictionary I've found, including wikipedia, "eminent domain" is either a synonym for, or defined in terms of, expropriation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Furthermore, let's not act like these massive publicly traded companies are people. It's not like voters are deciding to take away some grannies appartment that she rents out as her sole source of income/rent.

We're talking about the companies that have been over and over shown to defraud the granny for fees of services that they don't provide (like snow removal when there is no snow, or window cleaning when there are no windows), colluding to arbitrarily inflate housing prices, and engage in unlawful behaviour to prevent tennants from cancelling contracts.

In german law there is no fundamental right to profit at the stock exchanges. There is however a right to live in dignity. And I don't know about you, but not being scammed for the place that I live in, is a pretty dignifying thing.

[credit_guy]

> We're talking about the companies that have been over and over shown to defraud the granny for fees of services that they don't provide (like snow removal when there is no snow, or window cleaning when there are no windows), colluding to arbitrarily inflate housing prices, and engage in unlawful behaviour to prevent tennants from cancelling contracts.

The solution to some injustice is not another injustice. If these guys committed some unlawful thing, then the prosecutors should seek justice in the name of the people.

Now, for eminent domain being synonym with expropriation, I have to admit I was only familiar with the usage of the term in the US, where it most definitely is not. But, you are right, apparently in other countries, Germany included, eminent domain can mean expropriation. I'm completely dumbfounded that in countries that pride themselves as being democracies, expropriation is allowed by the law. But you live, you learn.

[j-pb]

> The solution to some injustice is not another injustice.

That statement is just absurd in this context. Your premise of this being injustice is wrong, don't engange in shitty rent seeking behaviour and you don't get expropriated, don't murder people and you won't have your right of free movement removed (or in the U.S. case you right to life...). Secondly, your falling for the paradox of tolerance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), being intolerant of nazism isn't a slippery slope towards nazism, just as being intolerant towards injustice isn't a slippery slope towards injustice. We're not talking about vigilante groups assasinating some CEO and their Family here, but almost litterally that:

> these guys committed some unlawful thing, then the prosecutors should seek justice in the name of the people.

Because hat's literally what's happening. Massive unethical and unlawful behaviour by these companies, and the population asks the government to step in and protect them. Be it in the form of a law or a persecutor for said law, makes little difference.

> I'm completely dumbfounded that in countries that pride themselves as being democracies, expropriation is allowed by the law.

That's rich from someone from a country with only two parties of which one just tried a coup... You still misunderstand what expropriation means in germany, you get the same compensation as you'd get from the 5th.

You seem to somehow complect democracy, which literally derives it's name from the greek words for "power" and "people" with libertarian neiliberalism, where profits are more important than people.

Fun fact, democracy is a form of government and orthogonal to the system of economy. Few democratic countries have capitalism written into their base-laws, so you could just as well have a post money star trek democracy.