Cybrpnk's Rantings

Much attention has been paid to the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London which affirms the right of the states to set their own policy on use of Eminent Domain. While I am surprised by the ruling, I believe that there is some potential good in it. In essence the decision says that the decision about what constitutes acceptable use of eminent domain is a local issue not a national one. It doesn't give states carte balance, it simply says that if a state chooses to abuse eminent domain that is not per se a national issue. Given that the core of the case is an affirmation of federalism, one must wonder why the conservatives on the courts disagreed. The reason for this is, I believe, that the ruling is a complete smackdown of the far-right 'property rights trump all' people. It reaffirms the belief that even if one is a libertarian one is still part of a society. And it actually encourages civic participation, because this means you can't sit off in your gated ranch doing nothing public and count on being left alone. No matter how much of a lone individual you think you are, you are still part of a society, and the needs and welfare of that society are supposed to be in balance with your individualism, not subservient to it.

Clearly this creates tremendous potential for abuse, especially in the absence of real campaign-finance reform, although it should be noted that the Kelo decision places far more constraint on Eminent Domain than conservative hysteria would have you believe. The argument about the primacy of civic society over the rights of the individual in this decision is actually affirming of core progressive beliefs. While it will almost certainly be spun as an assault on individual rights, this case isn't about the subjugation of the individual to the state, it is about the relative importance of property rights. Clearly the right to not be thrown in jail for no cause is far more important than the right to property ownership. Similarly, I would argue that the right to a toxic-free environment should trump the private property rights of a corporate polluter. Expect to hear lots of rhetoric about how the only purpose of the state is to preserve individual rights. This is just muddying the waters, as it implies that the only individual right that is important is property right. In fact, the individual rights that flow from the propagation of the common good in the form of civic society are more important than private property ownership. This has always been a central tenet of our society, and this is why it is in the constitution. The railroads would have never gotten built without eminent domain. The idea that one ornery property holder could prevent construction of an airport or dam or road would have prevented our modern infrastructure from ever being built. The plaintiffs in Kelo wanted the court to rule that economic development was not a 'public good.' A fascinating argument which one is shocked to find conservatives supporting.

There is an ideology in this country that believes that private ownership of property is the central fact of American life. People adhering to this ideology tend to be anti-tax, anti-government, and indifferent to the concept of civic society. This court decision tells these people that they are still Americans and as long as they live here and benefit from American freedom they need to accept that their personal wishes and property rights are not as important as the health of their communities. I expect conservatives to use this case to stampede homeowner fear into support for their extremist pro-corporate, anti-individual judges. A bitter irony caused by the blurring of an individual's right to their home and a corporation's right to do whatever they want. The individual liberty the conservatives will claim to be fighting for will once again lose unless and until we remove the absurd equating of 'corporate rights' with 'individual rights.'