In a 2004 debate Block and Epstein debated the necessity of eminent domain. Block argues that the United States government’s power of eminent domain is unnecessary because the United States is not a voluntary organization and therefore its power of eminent domain directly violates the individual right to informed, prior consent, while Epstein argues that eminent domain is a power necessary for the coordination problems we face in upholding society. I favor the argument of Epstein because his argument demonstrates that without the power of eminent domain our infrastructure would be at the mercy of monopoly interest, which would in turn harm the public interest. First I will present Block’s argument that eminent domain violates the individual right to prior consent. Next I will present Epstein’s argument justifying eminent domain as necessary for the coordination of society. Then I will offer discussion supporting Epstein’s argument supplemented by an ethical analysis from a utilitarian point of view. Finally I will offer recommendations to clarify eminent domain concepts and discuss its application in the field of engineering. I. Block Block argues that because the United States is not a voluntary group the government’s power of eminent domain violates the individual right to consent and therefore is unnecessary. Block begins his argument by suggesting that the real issue at the heart of the eminent domain debate is voluntary consent. He suggests that this consent must be issued voluntarily and prior to a given action in order for that action to be deemed a legal good. For my claim is that consent can turn what would otherwise be a legal bad into a legal good. For example, assault can turn into non-assault. Consent can turn what is a mugging into boxing. We don't put boxers in jail, even though what they do is punch each other, and in other contexts, we would do just that to them for such behavior. But since they both consented to punch and be punched above the belt, it turns from a legal "bad" into a legal "good." In other words, Block believes that eminent domain is unnecessary because it forces cooperation as opposed to seeking consent. Block says that it is consent of this form that validates the separation between an act of coercion and a just action. He argues that voluntary consent has the power to turn an action from an ethical bad to an ethical good. Block believes that given some voluntary consent an action is assumed just, and rightfully so: “Eminent domain is okay within a condominium development or restrictive covenant or based on some sort of prior consent.” So, in this scenario the residents of a condo complex have agreed to the terms of the condo complex. This example illustrates that consent is the deciding factor between just and unjust. Block goes so far as to suggest that given the residents prior consent, within the condo complex, even eminent domain can be justifiably acceptable: If there is prior consent, then eminent domain is justified. For example, in a condominium development. I used to live in one. Every house there had to be painted the same color; you couldn't have a picket fence, because all of them were required to be in the same style. Here Block suggests that given prior consent eminent domain could be justified; however, he suggests that this consent must be voluntary. He supports this claim by offering the example of the condominium complex which imposes regulations based on voluntary, prior consent. He then supports his claim that eminent domain is an unjust “legal bad” by offering his view that the United States of America is not a voluntary club and therefore cannot assume the consent of it’s residents. But what about outside of a condominium development? Suppose we are now talking about "out there" as in the case if somebody wants to widen a highway or build a new road and there is a hold out. To me, the issue comes down to the question of whether the U.S. government is an agreed-upon institution? Is it a club? Are we all part of this club called U S.A.? If so, then we have already agreed to be bound by whatever the majority wants, and presumably eminent domain could be one such policy. And that would be fine. Block offers that if prior consent were to be an assumed agreement then the actions of eminent domain are in fact just. Much like the case of the condominium development, if one wishes to live in a condominium complex then they must also agree to the terms of that complex; however, Block suggests that there is a vital flaw in comparing a condominium complex to the United States government. The condominium complex has disclosed the actions of eminent domain and the citizens have previously consented whereas the government simply wields the power of eminent domain as they see fit, neglecting the necessity of consent: Such institutions featured an agreement to be bound by majority rule, within certain limits. Suppose they wanted to widen