Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Supreme Court: Cities May Seize Homes

Rate this topic


unskinned

Recommended Posts

All men have inalienable rights to their own lives and the role of a proper government is to protect those rights as inalienable. Emminent domain violates a man's inaleinable right to his own life. No man should ever be stolen from, under any circumstances. Recognizing all men as ends, politically, one should see such a violation as tyrrany. I'm not just parroting, they tried to do this to my grandfather and just thinking about it fills me with a fury unrealized by any other political issue.

As for the right of way easement, that rings a bell. It reminds me of the "coming to nuissance" solution to zoning discussed by David Willens on Capitalism Magazine. I have no reason to disagree with either. The point then is that where the private sector might fail to stop a malevolent billionaire from surrounding a city for irrational purposes, there is a rational legal solution which does not involve the initiation of force against anyone.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the private sector would allow such a thing for the reasons discussed.

I agree also that keeping the aribitrary whim of politicians completely out of the economy is the thing to worry about with government, not the idea that some billionaire heir might try something nutty. I concede that for these reasons emminent domain has no place in a proper government.

Another part of (common law?) allows citizen A to take land from Citizen B if B has neglected that land for a long period of time. I think that for the reasons above this also has no place in a proper government. Despite allowing for more fluidity in an economy, it is stealing. If B is really so neglectful, than A will get a lower price. Isn't that right?

Bearster, the statement "he can be fired by the voters is what" was applying a double standard. Sorry. (my bad)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.........Eminent domain is used by states to take land from private citizens by force. If they can do this against the will of the landowner, and without paying for it, then none of us can own land. We are only renting it from the state until they decide they want it back.  I have enough American Indian in me to want to keep up with the state illegally taking land.

Very well-taken points.

I've read of instances in Maryland, for example, where, under an "urban reconstruction act" the State was allowed to seize land using eminent domain and turned it over to developers for a commercial complex which was funded under this same act.

This is grossly immoral and illogical and has nothing to do with capitalism.

It is a gross disregard for property rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say a Bill Gates type of character buys a ring around a small city to get back at an offending lover living inside.

One of the most important things you need to understand about rights is that valid rights can never conflict with one another. If a supposed "right" goes against another individual's right, it is not a right.

Thus, you can never rightfully imprison a person, not even if you have bought up all the land around him. Your right to property ends where his right to liberty begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case where the petitions are asking for some limits to be imposed upon governments seeking to use "eminent domain". Dana Berliner is one of the lawyers for the petitioner.

The American Bar Assoc. has this posting which contains the brief by the petitioners.

Have any lawyers on this forum been following the progress of this case? How does it look for the forces of freedom? Is a small vistory possible here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Re: eminent domain, I agree totally that this is an insidious and very dangerous law. But I wanted to raise another corollary issue: property taxes. They are the 'proof' that the state's position on property ownership is that they own it all and we are simply renters (who also have the burdens of landlords--maintenance) of that property.

Look at the building code laws. These are here for a number of obvious reasons, but the underlying reason is to ensure a uniform type of home construction--one that will be marketable, should you ever get too far behind on your taxes.

I find property taxes to be fundamentally un-American, and I think there is a possible logical argument, referencing the Constitution, to demonstrate that they may be un-Constitutional. Briefly, the Preamble talks about Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The dictionary defines liberty as freedom from slavery or forced labor. Property taxes, being mandatory and not based on income level, must be paid, regardless of employment status. This means that one must go out and do some sort of labor to aquire the money to pay the tax. That, in a brief summary, is the 'forced labor' that the Preamble, by definition, proscribes.

I believe property rights to be one of the most important rights. If we do not have the security and safety of our private property, we are not free as individuals, or as a nation.

What particularly irritates me is the implicit notion that America is a free nation that respects individual rights, when in practice, a majority of the laws contradict that noble stance.

In another thread, I will seek ideas for alternative funding of town services, such as schools, as I am in the process of educating (through a series of newspaper editorials) the locals on the danger of taxation and the real status of land ownership. I have done that much, but now am about to embark on the task of showing them a constructive alternative to taxation.

On a lighter note, the airport Eminent Domain situation is similar to one used in the Australian movie "The Castle", which is about a family faced with losing their home to an airport expansion. The story imbues a bit of humor into the situation, as the main character is a little bit dense, but nice all-around guy who rises to the occasion and stands up for his rights.

I think we, as Objectivists, have a duty to ourselves to become more active in public issues like this, because our silence leaves government in a vacuum, where 'anything goes' and that is to our detriment. I'm doing it through my editorials in the paper, as well as discussing issues of importance in online communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another thread, I will seek ideas for alternative funding of town services, such as schools, as I am in the process of educating (through a series of newspaper editorials) the locals on the danger of taxation and the real status of land ownership. I have done that much, but now am about to embark on the task of showing them a constructive alternative to taxation.

A school should be private property not a "town service!" For some reason, after these words, I think you are about to introduce an "alternative" to taxation which still violates the same principles as taxation itself. However, I will not say anything more until I hear exactly what you are trying to introduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A school should be private property not a "town service!" For some reason, after these words, I think you are about to introduce an "alternative" to taxation which still violates the same principles as taxation itself. However, I will not say anything more until I hear exactly what you are trying to introduce.

I agree that ultimately, education must be privatized (and the compulsory nature of it abolished), however, in a town which has recently spent close to $100M of the taxpayers' dollars on two brand-new schools, it would be impossible to sell this concept outright. A transition period of gradually removing public education funding from the tax roles may stand a better chance of gaining public support. It will take much longer (if at all) to educate the public to the point where they understand and feel comfortable with private education alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Summary:

"A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights."

"The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas."

FOR:

"'The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,' Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer."

AGAINST:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

"She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

Full article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eizing_property

There are no such thing as "community rights". Only Individual rights. :)

I have heard it said that the supreme court is the final check on the Legislative and Executive branches. When I asked my lawyer friend a few years ago, what happens when the justices become corrupt and begin to undermine individual rights, he told me that once appointed, supreme court judges have a history of interpreting the law regardless of their political beliefs. In response I told him that there was a fourth and final branch of government to ensure that individual rights are not trampled. This branch is known as the armed citizenry. I can honestly see people killing to defend their homes in this country. This will all come to a head somewhere and someone will get hurt. This decision is one more step towards totalitarian rule and only empowers what Rand called the "pull peddlers".

DS

(edited to add quotes and highlight article quotes in blue)

Edited by ds1973
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt this is madness, but the idea of defending your home against an overwhelming amount of force for which you have no chance of stoping, is equally mad. I would rather live on to fight the good ideological fight. With time, the pen is mightier than the sword, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moose:

Martydom is a kin to sacrificial ritual. Think of Washington when he had his band of troops picking at the Brits and running, picking and running, never facing them head on and playing on their terms. He based the independence campaign on the idea that so long as the Union Army existed, there was hope. Why face an overwhelming force knowing you will die and give up all chances of ever fighting and winning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I would die...chances are, I'd be arrested fairly shortly and would still gain martyr status. Something like that would gain a lot of publicity and could wind up turning the public against the government, demanding my release, yada yada yada. Even if I were killed, let me remind you of the Patrick Henry quote that often appears at the top of this forum:

"Is life so precious as to be bought at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that quote. But don't approach that as some out-of-context general principle. The quote means that when no alternative is possible, when the only choice is slavery, he'd rather die fighting for liberty. But, we are nowhere near that. Our liberties are being curtailed, little by little, but we are nowhere near the point where a call to arms is necessary, unlike the States in the Founding Era.

Note that you said you'd rather die defending your home, none of this stuff about going to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they were, but that's because they had no time to fight with the pen, we still do. The progression would be fight with ideas-->fight with arms, all depending on the eminency of the plung into despotism.

I admit the question of "When is it time to take up arms?" is one I have to introspect further on. Nevertheless, I still stand by my comment that the act of attempting to stop the taking of my house in exchange for "equal market value" in the United States of today is not worth more than my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that quote.  But don't approach that as some out-of-context general principle.  The quote means that when no alternative is possible, when the only choice is slavery, he'd rather die fighting for liberty.

The question is, where do we draw the line for slavery? Clearly, the Brits were not going to use Mr. Henry as a slave like a Southern slave owner would use his negroes. Mr. Henry would still have enjoyed most of the freedoms we enjoy today, if not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree CF, and as I said, I have to introspect further on the question of "where to draw the line." No doubt we've drawn the line and have been fighting the ideological war, but when do we take it up a notch and fight with arms? What considerations must be taken into account? I'll think on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the state of American politics, I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that this war can be won ideologically in our lifetime. The American public is too ignorant and apathetic and the politicians are too focused on catering to interest groups and doing what the American people think they want, rather than what is just. It will only get worse and I do not forsee America being free again until some date in the distant future when an armed conflict might come down on the side of individual liberty.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...