June 23, 2005
A clarification
I realize that the last post was a bit cryptic, but blame Dick Nixon for that. I should clarify my position on the latest decision from the Supreme Degenerates:
1. I have no problem, in theory, with the seizure of private property for the public good, so long as the property owner is justly compensated. I am, when push comes to shove, more inclined towards Big Government Euro-style than I ever am towards Libertarianesque deregulation. Sorry, but we Falangists tend to go that direction (and yes, other than Roosevelt, Kennedies, and Truman, I probably am much more of an old-time Democrat than a Republican of any time). Bad regulations can always be slowly and slightly modified, but when you let the cat out of the bag, good luck stuffing the hapless thing back in there when it turns out to be a monster.
2. I can even allow the seizure of private property to allow other private interests to have it, in extremely limited cases, in which the transfer is ALWAYS from larger interest to smaller interest (so, yes, I can get behind, in theory, very limited land reforms of the Latin American variety, but they must be handled very carefully).
However, the notion of seizing private houses to build more Walmarts, or to destroy an established organic neighborhood in order to build some sterile ticky tacky development is terrible. And this is exactly the flood gate that this awful decision has opened.
Here is a case where my centrist, authoritarian, pro-regulation, pro-common good creed must be relaxed in favor of a balance in the direction of property rights, because the only outcome we can expect in this day and age is the very worst exploitation of the weakest members of society, the various forms of local government corruption (not that that is high on my list of problems to worry about - seriously, I have seen too much good come out of corruption), and the destruction of interesting architecture in favor of the bland and the sterile.
Basically we can expect the worst trends of modern planning to be magnified, for the cities barely hanging on to any character to lose it, and for the elderly and marginal to lose their homes.
Good work Souter, Breyer, Kennedy, Stevens, and Ginzberg! You have just, again, made the world a little bit of a worse place.
Posted by erik at June 23, 2005 2:47 PM | TrackBackI'll just plan to move to Italy. If I've got to deal with an interfereing corrupt bureaucracy, I'd rather do it surrounded by beautiful land, beautiful ancient churches, and priests and monasteries for access to the sacraments.
But until then, I'm going to buy a ticky-tacky tract home because it's the only thing I can afford.
Execrable decision, but what do you expect from a bevy of platonic guardians who actually believe in the privelege of judicial review as a right.
Posted by: Flambeaux at July 1, 2005 7:18 AMOh, we agree there.
The point I was trying to make was that, as the Seminole learned in the swamps, and the Mormons on the shores of a salt lake, no matter how worthless and inhospitable a plot you intentionally select, someone bigger is going to want it.
It would appear that we can't even move into the middle of nowhere and expect to truly own property. The local gov't will just determine it would make a nifty resort hotel, and there goes a man's livelihood.
Posted by: Franklin Jennings at June 23, 2005 7:10 PMNow, you see, this is why I cannot issue a blanket condemnation of government seizure. In both cases you mention, I have to support the government.
In the case of the Indians, they had centuries to develop civilization, and they failed to do so. They couldn't even settle land disputes between themselves, let alone show clear title to the Europeans. Certainly justice demands that they get a little something to live on, but the worst thing were all these treaties continuing to treat them as sovereign. Terrible idea. They should have simply been assimilated and given all the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen, with a little something for their land (perhaps each family given title to a percentage of the land: enough for a family farm. Then they could do what they wanted).
As for the Mormons, I completely and fully support the Janet Reno approach to cults. Burn their false books, imprison their leaders, smash their temples, seize their common lands, and prosecute relapsi who try to revive the cult. It is the approach I favor in dealing with JW's, Seventh Day Adventists, Mohammedans, Falun Gong, Scientologists, Wicca, Church of Satan, Amway, etc.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at June 23, 2005 4:39 PMIts truly frightening, ain't it?
And as we have learned from the Indians and Mormons, there is no land government doesn't want.
I'm tempted to say I'll die before they turn my vegetable garden into a Home Despot or subdivision.
I guess it depends on how fair the offer is.
Posted by: Franklin Jennings at June 23, 2005 3:26 PM