But to derive lessons from such histories we must go beyond the particular and seek truths that are invariant. Is there a valid “larger interest” that justifies the destruction of people’s homes and neighborhoods?

I’ll quote Anthony Gregory, who has a gift for words surpassing mine, to address the the claim of “just compensation’”:

“Oftentimes, the state claims it is offering a “fair market value” for the property it seeks to seize, but this is a sham. The market price for something is, by definition, the price that both parties consent to. In a fair market exchange, each party gives up something he values less for something he values more, or else he wouldn’t agree to it.

It is only through such a voluntary transaction that we can determine what something’s market value is in the first place. Market value is not universal, but particular to the assets exchanged in a specific transaction. For any given piece of property, there can be no market value without market exchange.”

Source: http://mises.org/daily/2379

For those curious about issues related to those raised here, I reccommend Murray N. Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and State”

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp

The Bullfrog Films prices are for colleges, high schools, libraries that are buying the film to show to students or groups continually over time. That’s their main market. The high price includes a public performance rights license that allows the institutions to do this and comply with copyright law.

I did a quick google search, and it’s available on Amazon.com for home use for less than $20.

Thanks.