|
The Washington
Times The U.S. Supreme
Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the house in which
she was born 87-year-old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived
there with her for 60 years. Why? The government wants to seize their
property, bulldoze their house and many others and sell the land to
businesses and developers for private uses. One must very carefully
choose words in political discussions but must not mince them either.
This decision in the Kelo v. New London case is another giant
step toward classical corporatism or fascism in America. In this case the
city council of New London, Conn., decided to condemn and take the homes
and businesses of a number of citizens, including the Derys and Susette
Kelo, who filed the case, in the name of economic development. The Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution allows governments to take property by eminent
domain, as long as just compensation is paid, but only for public uses.
These uses have always been understood to be necessary government-provided
infrastructure such as courthouses or roads. Otherwise, property
should be sacrosanct. Individuals, businesses or governments might seek
to purchase it, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is his
or her right -- meaning one need not secure the permission or blessing
of neighbors, government or "society"to own property. But in recent decades
politicians have made increasingly brazen elitist attempts to remodel
our lives and communities. They more and more have welded eminent domain
to seize private homes and enterprises in order to turn them over to
different businesses or developers they believe will use the property
in ways that better serve the community. Now the Supreme
Court has undermined fundamental private property rights by ruling,
in effect, that governments can pretty much seize property for any reason
they see fit. Thus we have a
situation in which, unlike under socialism, individuals can still hold
title to their own property. But unlike a free-market system, they do
not own their property by right. They hold it at the discretion of political
authorities who can yank it away at a whim. This is the economic principle
of the classical corporatist or fascist regime. To call it corporatist
or fascist is no mere epithet. It designates a system that maintains
the veneer of property while political authorities have extensive powers
to limit rights in the name of economic planning. This system necessarily
means political conflict is the normal state of affairs -- either in
open elections and legislation or closed-doors deals between lobbyists
and politicians. It means no one's property is truly secure. Some pundits complain
Americans are too apathetic about politics. Yet in a corporatist regime,
everyone will be politically involved but for all the wrong reasons.
Many individuals, whether through misplaced idealism, pandering paternalism
or pure predation, will threaten the liberties of their neighbors while
others will face a never-ending battle to defend their lives, liberties
and property. Everyone will need be on guard against his neighbors.
Instead of a peaceful society, we will have a war of all against all. What are the Derys
and Ms. Kelo to think of their city council members? What are they to
think of their neighbors who failed to stand up for their property rights
and denounce these politicians, shun them like the plague and vote them
out of office? The only moral feelings they can have are resentment,
and a sense of violation and deep injustice. The Kelo decision
is a wakeup call for restoring property rights. Under the Fourteenth
Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against
abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new
civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property
rights. Congress could limit eminent domain to narrow public purposes
and bar takings for ultimately private uses. Good fences make
good neighbors. The right to private property is the cornerstone of
any peaceful and prosperous society that respects individual rights.
In this battle, there can be no fence-sitters. There's no better case
than the Kelos' to demonstrate that property rights are civil rights. |
