An Argument to Repeal Eminent Domain

An Argument to Repeal Eminent Domain
Henry W. Hessing

From an article written by Larry Salzman dated November 1999 entitled New Eminent Domain Assaults: Taking Private Property for Political Elite, “The fundamental principles of this country are that all men are created equal, that every man is an end to himself endowed with inalienable rights, including property rights, that each man be accorded equal protection by law and that no man be deprived of due process. Eminent domain contradicts these principles. It sacrifices the rights of some individuals in favor of the alleged “public interest” of others. We must choose one set of principles or the other- American tradition or arbitrary rule by official whim. They cannot coexist.” My algebra teacher might have quoted the Identity Principle – “A” equals “A” and “A” cannot equal “B”.

Herb Ladley, an associate editor for Cavalier Daily describes a case in Bristol, Tennessee, where residents defeated a government proposal to confiscate their land and give it to the local NASCAR track by posting signs reminding people of the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property.” Local officials accused the landowners of being “greedy” but did not accuse others of being greedy for wanting to use the power of the government to confiscate homes and make themselves wealthy.

In Kelo vs New London homeowners sought to challenge New London, Connecticut’s plan to take their homes for “economic development” via eminent domain. Landowners would receive compensation under the Fifth Amendment mandate. Their claim was that economic development could not be considered “public use.”

The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain might be used for nearly any “public purpose” including economic development. Jonathan H Adler a contributing editor to National Review On Line noted, “It is not clear that the constitution’s text bars property transfer from A to B. The specific legal claim in this case was not strong enough to make a constitutional stand. The dissenting opinion did not prove that the Founders sought to limit the purposes for which eminent domain could be used.” The dissenting judges wrote, “The result is that government has power to transfer from those with fewer resources to those with more.”

A reporter once asked Willy Sutton, the 1930’s outlaw, why he robbed banks. Sutton replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” In an article entitled, The Willy Sutton Theory of Government” March, 2001 Robert Tracinski states, “The criminal’s mindset is that moral justifications and the rights of others are considered irrelevant.” The real issue in Kelo is how we look at government and how we regard basic moral issues.

According to Mr. Tracinski, “the Willy Sutton theory of government is when the left wants to achieve a goal, it doesn’t ask about morality or rights. It asks, ‘where is the money?’” In New London, the local government asked ‘where is the land.’

The theory that turns government into a bank robber or land grabber is the theory of “public good.” According to this theory, the “public good” is the only moral standard. Individual rights and property rights are dispensable. The Willy Sutton form of government means that if someone has land and someone else can argue that “the public” needs it, “then anything goes.” This is political amoralism. The disciples of Willy Sutton want to ignore the principle of individual rights.

Ayn Rand was right when she observed, “since there is no such entity as “the public” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supercedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.”

Mr. Salzman described a similar case in San Diego wherein he noted, “The local government is forcing a politically weak minority of citizens to sacrifice its rights to a well-connected few, in the alleged favor of the majority.” This is exactly what happened in New London, Connecticut. Forgotten and ignored is the fact that the market place works on voluntary transaction. Paraphrasing Mr. Ladley, “If someone refuses to give up his property voluntarily, that does not make it just to motivate him with a bulldozer.” Totalitarian central planning throws out the logic of the marketplace.

If judicial activists have their way, why bother with property rights or individual rights? It is already too late for citizens in New London. Your property could be next. The solution is to repeal Eminent domain entirely.