Who's Really After Your Stuff?

Conservatives like to talk about private property rights. In the extreme conservative lexicon, taxation means "thievery" and environmental regulations infringe on people's rights to do whatever they want with the land they own. Liberals have tended to be a little more flexible about the issue, often weighing the public good above inidividual property owner desires. This is an old, old fight.

Today, the Supreme Court handed down a property rights decision that should bother consvertives and liberals alike. The court ruled that the city of New London, CT can annex the property of private citizens who don't want to sell their homes and land in order for an office building to be erected. Emminent Domain seizures, where a government forces citizens to sell property in order for some public good (a highway, a school, a park) are rare. This decision defines office buildings, shopping malls and the like as "public good" under the reasoning that economic development is in the public interest.

Putting aside any outrage or sympathy I feel on behalf of those forced to move, I have to agree that economic development is in the public interest of most communities. It would be churlish to suggest otherwise.

That said, I disagree with the court because I think that the economy shouldn't rule policy -- there should be give and take. Sometimes, you make a decision in deference to economic forces, sometimes you have to expect economic forces to defer to other values like individual rights, freedom, or aesthetics.

Besides, we don't live in a perfect world. Say I'm a developer and I want to go to your town and build an office building. I need approvals from zoning commissions and maybe from the city council. Of course, I'm going to argue that my idea is in the best interests of all of humanity. To further that argument, I'm going to contribute to campaigns, take people golfing, take people out on the town, give some cash to a local charity and let your council representative take the credit for bringing a new friend to your community. It's simply not going to be as simple as a third party economic assessment of my plans, and we all know it.

The irony is that conservatives worry about the government stealing from private citizens. But, who does the government serve? Usually other, more powerful, private citizens. Is the city of New London kicking people out of their homes? Yes. But they're doing it in deference to a corporate interest. I think it's time that people realized that, in many cases, the threat to individual freedom doesn't come from the government, it comes from other, more powerful, individuals.

But why do we have a government in the first place? It's supposed to keep the strong from trampling the weak. That's what's wrong with the Supreme Court's decision -- it exists in some sort of abstract, perfect world, while real life is far mroe complicated.