In a recent Supreme Court Case, now known as Kelo, the USSC said it was Constitutional for government to take private property (with compensation of course) for the purpose of promoting greater economic use.

In layman’s terms, the Constitutional permits the State to take your land and give it to a developer to build a business, as long as you are justly compensated.

This power is called “eminent domain”, the power of the State to take private property.

The debate in the USSC was whether there were any serious limits on the purpose of the seizure. For example, it’s pretty clear that our property can be taken to make way for a railroad, with compensation. And our land can be taken if blighted, so that we can redevelop the land into something nice that is a benefit to the community.

(Speaking of “blighting”, if you read the paper closely you will find that local communities are always “blighting” some pretty decent land — if you wonder why, then here is the answer: they are justifying the seizure of the land by the State)

The latest USSC case is whether “blighting” is really necessary. Does the State have to artificially declare that a pretty nice area has become “blighted” before being able to force you to sell it? What if the State feels that the community would benefit economically from building a shopping mall on your nice land - shouldn’t the State be able to force you to sell, for the greater economic good of us all?

The USSC decided that the State has, in effect, unfettered power to force us to sell our land for the greater economic good of the community.

In the article excerpted below, a libertarian goes to great lengths to provide a philosophical discussion of the pros and cons of the eminent domain power.

I am not saying I agree with the author. I am not an economic libertarian.

But I have chosen to highlight the article mainly for the following reason: The author has approached the subject very seriously, giving a fair presentation of the opposing viewpoints, and going into detail about the philosophy of the various positions.

I do not embrace any philosophy similar to economic libertarianism. EconLib is a utopian unattainable ideal kind of like a religious philosophy for its adherents. In its pure form it’s almost like anarchy. We tried anarchy in the USA business world, until the early 1900’s and we got the robber barons and low wages and long workdays and child labor and pollution galore and unsafe workplaces, and no employment benefits, etc.

So I do not see the attraction of pure EconLib in modern society.

However, there is nothing wrong with a moderate form of EconLib, a form which recognizes that a lot of government imposed rules and standards are good, but that the government should merely be very cautious before it regulates the marketplace. If the modern EconLibs feel that way, then I can respect their position as a position of reason and moderation.

Anyway, for your intellectual pleasure, consider the following article.

Federalism and the Bill of Rights: The Pros and Cons of Kelo by Roderick T. Long

Federalism and the Bill of Rights:
The Pros and Cons of Kelo

by Roderick T. Long

Libertarians are divided over the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London to allow coerced property transfers to private parties to count as “public use.” No libertarian likes the decision as it stands (since, for one thing, it clearly authorises an expansion not only of State-level but of Federal eminent domain power); the disagreement is over what the Court should have done instead. Some libertarians (see, e.g., Richard Epstein and Sheldon Richman) think the Court should have protected private property owners from this expanded assault on their rights by striking down the New London statute; other libertarians (see, e.g., Stephan Kinsella and Ron Paul) think the Court should have declined, on federalist grounds, any jurisdiction over eminent domain at the State level.

I find myself in partial agreement and disagreement with both sides. Let me explain why.
[. . . ]