Saturday, July 02, 2005
Government Eminence
The dust hasn’t begun to settled on the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the nature of eminent domain -- government seizure of private property (with "just" compensation).
This landmark ruling will certainly put the "progressives" in a quandary. The decision increases the chances that a local government will kick a poor, middle-class, or rich individual or family off their private property, while providing token compensation (determined by that same government -- of course).
Eminent domain used to legally sanction the seizure of private property in the cause of public use (Bridges, highways, schools, etc.). Certainly no one liked leaving the family home or farm for this "greater good," but most, reluctantly, “cooperated” -- they had no choice, and the motives seemed reasonable. After the recent ruling, they still have no choice, but now their loss can be for no better reason than the government's desire to favor a higher revenue producing mall, store, or condo-complex.
The ruling is of course complex and does afford a local government’s choice to maintain the status quo, but many local governments will no doubt be lured by the prize of increased tax revenue.
Additional fallout from this latest abridgment of individual rights is insightfully pointed out by Neal Boortz (the entire appraisal is well worth reading and an equally insightful update can be read here as well). The mere possibilities inherent in this decision greatly increases the risk any party must now take when purchasing real estate and it will also automatically –-unnaturally -- reduce values of real estate (when one now considers the dramatically increased possibility that owned land can potentially be "purchased" on command by local governments at bureaucrat determined rates).
Now where does this put the left? Libertarians -- definitely "pro-business" (assuming consensual contract between free parties) -- are firmly in support of private property rights and I don't need to tell you, we don't care a whole lot for government in general, let alone schemes for enhancing its revenue (e.g. taxes). This ruling is one of the worst-case scenarios for those of us who favor liberty and the Constitution and are opposed to the authority of the state over individual lives and their property. It's probably too early to gauge where the socialists really stand on this, and where they do will tell us still more regarding their philosophy on "things in general." They’re clearly no friend of Wal-Mart, real estate developers, or any business enterprise (well, okay, maybe the corner hardware store will pass if they don't get too big or "rich" from their effort). On the other hand, the very concept of private property and individual ownership (vs. "public" anything) is anathema to the left. I can't help but assume that more than a few “progressives” are secretly thrilled by the state's new authority to seize private property for "public good" (higher tax revenue), but the paradox is, this will occur at great benefit to institutions like Wal-Mart and the local land developer. What’s a Jacobin to do to remain consistent?
This is an opportunity for those on the left to now show their true colors. Are they for "the people" (individuals, their choices, and property), or for the authority of the state over all? I’m going to guess that many will give Wal-Mart and the like a pass on this one, considering the alternative is acknowledging the primacy of the individual and private property. To tell the truth, if they oppose the ruling, they’ll get a little more respect from me; if they support it, it will be further confirmation that their collectivist authoritarian philosophy is headed to new lows.
