Eminent Destruction

Somewhere, Nicolae Ceausescu is looking up at America and smiling. The late communist dictator of Romania notorious for bulldozing the homes of his own citizens for his personal glorification- while relegating their previous occupants to shoddy apartment complexes- must have blushed a little at Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling allowing for the expansion of the government’s powers of eminent domain. Under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the government may seize private property from its owner if it provides just compensation for the seizure. Until today, they could only do it for public uses, such as schools, libraries, or roads. Now they can do it for private uses too, such as malls or office buildings.

Given the increasing erosion and fragility of property rights in this country over the years, this new gigantic expansion of eminent domain spells imminent doom for home owners. The Genius of the Carpathians himself would be quite proud of us. Just as Ceausescu could condemn an entire row of houses to dust with the wave of his arm, for the purpose of building yet another presidential palace, now a private firm can have bulldozers sent in for the purpose of building a shopping mall. Today’s ruling should frighten any property owner in this country- even with the promise of compensation- as the specter of the wrecking ball now potentially looms over every home in America.

This ruling shouldn’t be surprising either, given the current climate of the Court. The 5-4 decision was as split along party lines as an officially non-partisan Supreme Court could be. The swing to the left came from moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Leftist activist John Paul Stevens cited increased tax revenue as a reason why local governments would be justified in seizing land from homeowners. Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, stating that the promise of improved economic development of a community was not reason enough to bulldoze someone’s property- or provide government the unlimited authority to do so- even with compensation.

Such an action provides for the kind of income redistribution not even the staunchest of liberals would advocate, the transfer of wealth and property to from the poor to the rich. Indeed, the rich and powerful must be feeling pretty good about themselves, both in the private and public sector. Government and business both win in this decision while the individual home owner loses. Business gets your land, government gets more taxes, you get to look for another place to live.

In addition to increased land snatching power of Blazing Saddles proportions, this ruling represents a giant step towards corporatism. While government non-interference in the economy should be embraced, government cooperation with business should be greeted with a giant red flag. So are the teachings of F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom. Corporatism is as dangerous as the totalitarian controls of communism and an essential element of fascism. I love capitalism as much as anybody, but as long as the interests of business and government flourish, freedom and property rights suffer.

What would America’s founding fathers- the very authors of eminent domain- think of Thursday’s ruling? I would at least hope they would be alarmed, as the very principles for which they rebelled against Great Britain are being eroded one by one. Life, liberty, and property was the rallying cry of the malcontent colonists, and it should be clear that none are valued as highly today. Abortion and euthanasia have effectively killed the culture of life in America. The left’s constant assault on personal, religious, and political liberty hasn’t ceased since the Warren Court fired the first shots in the 1950’s. Thursday it was property rights that took a severe blow with eminent domain now protecting corporate interests.

It was about this time of year some two-hundred twenty-nine years ago when Thomas Jefferson stated in one of the most eloquent works of political philosophy in the history of modern man that whenever a government became destructive of certain inalienable rights- not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- that it was the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a government that protected those rights. Perhaps the likes of Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg should take notice.