I'm a bit out of place here, not being a libertarian, but I have a few comments.

Re Who Should Pay? Imposing death is a cheap, quick and easy way of dealing with an individual who presents a problem, so it's always a temptation, even the first resort rather than the last. There is always a political constituency for any proposal to expand the use of death as a solution. And any use of death which is legitimized tends to outgrow the limits the original enactors had in mind. The end state of progress in that direction could be horrific.

Back in the 1970s, opponents of legalized abortion predicted that it would lead to euthanasia and other more casual applications of death. Those of us, like myself, who believed in a woman's right to control her own body disputed this. But it looks like the abortion precedent has indeed emboldened other advocates of death. Some are pushing to open the door to the horror of widespread legal euthanasia, by way of so-called "physician assisted suicide". And the death penalty for criminals is reaching new heights of popularity in America.

George R. Stewart, in a famous passage of the novel Earth Abides, tells of a post-apocalyptic community which votes unanimously to put a miscreant to death. He portrays this decision as the beginning of "the state". But the difference between that isolated and vulnerable settlement and our current society, with its elaborate justice system and prisons, could hardly be greater. Apart perhaps from certain wartime situations described elsewhere on this page, it is hardly ever "necessary" for us to kill a convicted criminal.

Moreover, to give our judges and juries and governors the authority to put a person to death is, in my view, deeply corrupting to the political system.

Re Harm-preventing versus Benefit-confering: This isn't an accurate statement of the law on this point. Ordinarily, government actions under the police power (i.e., laws or regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare) may have economic consequences to individuals, but they are not owed any compensation. Government action to take real estate require compensation to the property owner under the 5th Amendment.

(Obviously police power actions are usually harm-preventing, and taking real estate is usually benefit-confering, but that is not the distinction between the two concepts. For example, a regulation may promote a benefit, or eminent domain can be used to abate a hazard.)

The Pennsylvania Coal case in 1922 created the concept that a regulation may equal a taking of real estate, invoking the 5th amendment compensation requirement (or an invalidation of the regulation). Subsequent cases clarified that mere diminution in value of a property (e.g., by zoning it for residential rather than commercial use) is not a 5th Amendment "taking". Indeed, it is rare for property owners to successfully claim a regulatory taking.

Moreover, there are many other kinds of economic interests, besides ownership of interests in real estate, which may be negatively affected by a regulatory action. You could have a warehouse full of valuable widgets which a new regulation suddenly makes worthless. A traffic control order could make a street one-way and put your gas station out of business. A restaurant inspector could force you to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars buying new refrigerators. None of these have even the theoretical basis for a legal claim against the government for compensation. Nor should they.