There is an industry in the USA in which people make a career based on using the power of the state to seize the private property from churches, home owners and small businesses and turn it over to large corporations in order to let them benefit by setting up large businesses and thereby provide more tax money for more public sector employees to share in.
It has been pointed out by many that this is a deeply corrupting process in which wealthy developers simply pay local government officials to use force in their narrow economic interests. Yet ‘corrupting’ seems a rather weak term for what is simply naked theft which at the same time negates the often stated pretence that the state is there to ensure individual rights are not trampled upon by the rich and powerful. In fact the Supreme Court ruling overtly institutionalises the fact that the police and courts are vehicles for the rich and powerful (business and governmental interests) to do whatever they wish if there is money to be made.
To understand how this could happen it helps if you realise that many Democrats these days take what is technically a fascist view of private property (that you are free to own property provided you further state objectives with it) rather than a socialist one (that all means of production should belong to the state). So next time a some hysterical Democrat from the Daily Kos tells you how important it is to prevent George Bush from adding some conservatives to the Supreme Court because of the need to safeguard civil liberties from The Wingnuts, understand that these same people actually have no problem from a civil liberties point of view with enriching already wealthy property developers at the expense of community churches and poor people. Exactly how this squares with their purported support for ‘the little guy’ (have you ever heard of a wealthy district full of stockbrokers and lawyers being bulldozed to make way for a Wal-Mart?) is an interesting question answered only via some impressive pretzel logic. In reality the Justices who stood up to corporate interests were ‘conservatives’. The fight to prevent eminent domain abuse now has to be conducted at State level now that the Federal battle has been lost to the corporatists.
But also many advocates of the Second Amendment talk about how private firearms are the ultimate bulwark against tyranny and injustice. Well maybe now it is time for them to walk the walk. Maybe if some of the people who make their living as ’eminent domain professionals’ were unable to scout out their targets in the most egregious of these cases without considerable personal risk, much like any criminal casing a property they intend to rob, then perhaps the true nature of what they are doing becomes harder to hide behind legal verbiage.
The only upside to this whole situation is the likely radicalising effect this ruling will have on people to whom civil liberties matter and to whom private property is the very corner stone of those liberties.
Perry, these developers usually get their comeuppance.
Most of these condemnation projects fail because the project makes no business sense.
The developer goes to the government only after a number of investors have turned him down. Bureaucrats step in thinking they are much smarter than all those investors who rejected the deal.
You see these projects all over the America and Canada. Lots of people space with many new buildings. And those buildings are empty save for the a few T-shirt stores. The developer has defaulted on all his loans, and the government is holding the bag for building maintenance.
And how does that help the original dispossessed property owners?
The most disgusting part of the scenario, though, is the attempt to justify the taking on the ground that it will supply more revenue to … who? Oh, yes, the government that authorized the taking! Talk about thievery. Forget Roe v. Wade. Kelo can be used as a “litmus test” for judicial nominees for the next century.
Perry, good piece. I have written about this issue before on this blog, and it often surprises people to know how much brute power the US state now has to kick folk out of their homes.
I urge everyone to click on the link to the firm which profits from ED and to leave a comment on their email link. Keep the comments civil but make sure these scumbags know how they should be viewed.
One can only hope that Bush’s choices for the Supreme Court tilt it in a more pro-property rights direction in future but I am not holding my breath. This outrageous decision needs to be challenged as soon as possible. Otherwise property rights in the world’s biggest “free economy” will be a sham.
This SCOTUS decision is a scandal, but before we have sympathy with many of these Churches, lest we forget the battles in the last few years whereby religious groups, aided by that certain section of the Repubs, sought to exempt places of worship from many of the planning hoops the rest of us had to endure, with not a thought of fairness in fighting for the extension of that “right” to us peons.
RLUIPA anyone?
Maybe now they’ll see why we pushed for fairness.
Snide:
It doesn’t, but it does give them satisfaction that people who took their property got financially wacked.
Not all of us have to fight at the state level(Link).
Nine states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. Interesting to note that these are predominately “red states”
It maybe that this decision expedites H.R. 1658(Link)
(
While this bill is targeted at “transjudicialism”, it is still ion committee and could be easily amended.
I hate to say it but councils in Britain have been using compulsory purchase for decades,road widening etc.They don’t even have the decency to actually demolish but re-sell when the schemes are cancelled.
Prperty that was sequestered in WWII often did not get returned.
“… and nine states, including Washington, allowing seizures only if they eliminate blight”
As if “eliminate blight” can’t be used to justify pretty much anything with a little creativity.
You know…
I used to be (kinda am) a libertarian because I believed primarily that it created the greatest social good. When things like this, I see the end result of opting for pragmatism over idealism. These people (justices, local governments) actually believe that what they are doing is for the greatest social good. That frightens me. I decided that if i wasn’t so gungho idealistic, I may be able to get more done… at least push things in a better direction. One more intellectual push… and I don’t think I will be able to stomach pragmatism very well.
-Lokon
isn’t this how the usa came into existence in the first place? what was that about cycles and things repeating themselves?
I will only quibble with Perry’s use of the word “theft.” This is not theft. “Theft” implies some stealth involved.
This is robbery, in full daylight, backed by the full power of the State.
Fascism and socialism are merely different sides of the same coin, as Hayek made it quite clear. They both serve the idea of the State as the secular modern liberal idea of God. Any way to enhance Big Government is doing glory to their god.
Neither truly acknowledges the idea of “private” property. Both endorse the vision that people are nothing more than tenants and that if they don’t take care of the property of the State (and, in their perverse vision, all property belong to the State), it can be rescinded at will.
Liberals have been talking about the need to respect foreign precedents. I’m assuming that in this case, they are respecting the precedents being set in China and Zimbabwe.
“Eliminate blight” as a justification? See the turmoil in San Jose, CA. (last few years) over exactly this tactic being used. I visited some of those ostensibly blighted neighborhoods, and it was crystal clear that developers were buying city council staff “at the market” rather than buying the properties at the market price.
Supporting “libertarianism” in the hopes that is would provide the “greatest social good” is actually Utilitarianism and misguided (unless you /are/ a utilitarian).
True (IMO) libertarianism comes from recognising others as having as much right to freedoms as you’d expect for yourself.
Rich
Peter wrote:
A very good example of that is the small area in Peckham Rye which was CPO’d in the mid-90’s, in order to facilitate the construction of what was going to be the original underground Channel Tunnel rail link. Unsurprisingly the project was cancelled and the CPO’d property put back on the market, at a considerable markup to what the original residents were paid.
Regarding the WW2 compensation many people did receive some very substantial sums indeed – unfortunately a lot of that compensation was paid in nonredeemable War Bonds …
Julian,
The War Bonds were a particularly nice touch,I hadn’t heard that before.
I think the tone of this debate is somewhat exagerated. The property isn’t robbed – people are compensated, and I suppose they get a good compensation, though maybe short of the astronomical sums they demand when they know they have the power to stop a big developement project.
So it seems to me – not exactly the end of private property rights, but rather a debate over the price of the property.
It is accepted by all (well, by most, I’m not sure) that the principle of eminent domain is necessary when building roads, or redeveloping blighted areas, etc., when the property passes to public ownership. So what’s the big difference ?
If the owners get a good compensation, say – twice the previous market value – as opposed to ten times as they demand – then this is not the end of private property rights as we know them. It all boils down to a dispute over a price.
That does not mean that I support this decision, but the implementation of property rights always depended on the State, and one needs the law and the judges in order to keep one’s property when it is threatened. So you’ll have to depend on the judges also in this case for getting a good price for your property.
Jacob, things dont just boil down to price, they may well be compensated, but its not a free exchange of goods, its a bit like my stealing your car and leaving what its worth on the market under a brick where the car was, its still theft, as you proberbly did not want to sell the car, and nither do these people.
And further who claims that its ” necessary when building roads, or redeveloping blighted areas” as i understand it, Japan has got on fine without Compulsary purchase/eminate domain as a method, and its not like they have a bad infrastructure is it?
If the owners get a good compensation, say – twice the previous market value – as opposed to ten times as they demand – then this is not the end of private property rights as we know them. It all boils down to a dispute over a price.
Unfortunately Compulsory Purchase Orders/Eminent Domains very rarely give generous compensation. Especially in the UK they will give you an estimated average market value, invariably evaluated by a local government bureaucrat some years prior to the CPO being issued, plus a very small percentage on top.
Its LOOTING, Atlas Shrugged style.
Before we get all excited at the prospect that a Bush SCOTUS justice will restore “conservative balance” to the court, thereby preventing or god willing reversing this sort of outrage … before we get all excited about that, let’s reflect for a moment on just how truly conservative Bush actually is.
Wrong on all levels. The compensation is always below the real market value (which is of course the whole point… if the developers were willing to pay true market values, they would probably not need a CPO/eminent domain seizure). Also, how do you determine ‘price’ when one party has NO option but to ‘sell’ under the conditions set by the other party?
For the problems of a jury system this case shows that it is better than a judge system.
A radom jury would be very unlikely to approve of this looting.
“But a different Supreme Court for every judgement would lead to inconsistant judgements” – and judgements are consistant now?
A group of ordinary people would read the text of the Constitution (which is not very complicated) and listen to the arguments of both sides.
They would not have decades of legal training and practice to twist their minds into the interesting shapes that judges have got twisted into.
For libertarians to use a slur like “corporate interests” when you know full well a corporation is nothing other than a voluntary association of free individuals, is shameful. I don;t think anyone should be able to infringe on the property rights of another, but it does not matter in the least who the infringer is, corporate, limited partnerchip, individual such as Bill Gates, environmental group, NGO, foreign governmant, und so weiter.
For libertarians to use a slur like “corporate interests” when you know full well a corporation is nothing other than a voluntary association of free individuals, is shameful.
Actually it isn’t. A voluntary association of free individuals is called a partnership. Corporations are persons have special privileges. On they whole they are a useful social institution, but are (particularly when large) inclined to develop bureaucratic tendencies and the pompous uncivil personalty to go with them.
When corporations are used as vehicles for robbery, they are no better than gangs. Folks on the right need to get past reflexive support for businesses just because the left likes to attack them. In reality being pro-market means opposing businesses which use the state to trash markets.
Nathaniel Branden wrote in the memoirs that he once remarked to Ayn Rand that the big companies had so much vested interests in the welfare state, that they would be the biggest opponents to a laissez faire economy. She agreed with his assessment.
In atlas shrugged Rand depicted someone like Orren Boyle as a totally corrupt businessman who works with the state to extract power and money via the state apparatus.
Asking for import quota’s, subsidies and restrictions on competition is stealing money from consumers via the state! Libertarians/objectivists should condemn it.
Price cannot be accurately determined when the sale is forced. There can be no calculation of a “fair market price” in such a situation, period. Eminent domain partially rests on a fallacy that “fair market value” is a static quantity that is universally agreed upon by all. But when you buy or sell anything in a free market the price is set by 1) how much the buyer values the property, and 2) how much the seller values the property. That differs in all cases.
The problem with such a “fair market value” calulation is that it only takes into account the prices charged by people who WANTED to sell their houses. There is an enormous amount of property in the world that is valued at astronomical sums by its owners because they would never want to sell it. A home that a person has lived in their whole life and doesn’t want to leave is certainly worth much more to the owner than than any buyer would be willing to pay for it. So the owner doesn’t sell, which is the point.
Any democratic concept of fairness would dictate that “just compensation” would be driven by what the owner values the property at, not the government. The separation of powers concept should disallow the situation where the government has the power to take the property AND determine what it must compensate the victem. That’s fascism.
Bingo.
I’m not aware of too many who don’t. You’re scorn should be directed elsewhere.
This is not a zero sum game,what is nottaken into account is the the enormous disruption,both physically and mentally cause by a move of house.It can take literally years to settle down again,possessions get lost and broken,friends and neighbours parted with.The whole fabric of a life is built round ones home,jobs ,schools pastimes.
Furniture and fittings often don’t fit in the new house,painting and decorating are unsuitable.Lastly Moving house is a life experience which creates stress on a level with,bereavement,divorce,loss of job
DS my scorn was directed at those who did not condemn that kind of practice. And I know quite a few so called libertarians that would defend accepting subsidies. In fact they are hard to miss. Under what rock have you been hiding?
“And I know quite a few so called libertarians that would defend accepting subsidies.”
For instance?
Me.
If we adopt free trade, but another country does not, and still we trade with it, we accept a subsidy.
The same is true of personal domestic exchanges. Every time we use any of the services of a state that we believe is too big, we accept a subsidy.
In fact, every time we make a purchase at a lower price than we might otherwise be prepared to pay we accept a subsidy, for the thing we buy is worth more to us than to the seller, who subsidises us. When’s the last time, DS, that you said to someone, “No, that’s much les than I was prepared to pay.”
A libertarian is not someone who refuses to accept an advantage; he’s someone that refuses to manufacture an advantage by the use of force.
The Peoples’ Republic of IL is a red state?
Since when? Unless I read your statement incorrectly.
OTOH, can’t you just picture a resort/casino in Malibu, Cape Cod, Nantucket, and other places where “the rich” have thieir playgrounds?
“Wrong on all levels. The compensation is always below the real market value ..”
If compensation is inadequate it is indeed robbery. If.
“Also, how do you determine ‘price’ when one party has NO option but to ‘sell’ under the conditions set by the other party?”
Seems the party whose property has been taken has the option to sue, and have the compensation determined by a judge (not by those who take the house).
Houses (and everything else) have a “market price” which is the price at which similar houses, in similar neighbouhoods are being bought and sold.
“(which is of course the whole point… if the developers were willing to pay true market values, they would probably not need a CPO/eminent domain seizure).”
Wrong. A typical situation is one where developers are willing to pay well above market price, and most owners are only too happy to size the opportunity and sell. Then one party thinks it can win the lottery, and asks an astronomical price, estimating that the developer has no choice but to pay. Often the project is killed by such obstinacy, and all the other property owners lose a golden oportunity to earn a windfall. The party that kills the scheme does not refuse to sell because of it’s sentimental attachment to the house, but because of exagerated greed or plain stupidity.
So I have rather mixed feelings toward this “eminent domain” thing – I don’t like it, but sometimes it is necessary, and it isn’t robbery (or: it isn’t most of the time).
“Seems the party whose property has been taken has the option to sue, and have the compensation determined by a judge (not by those who take the house).”
And this will lead to a “just compensation” how?
“Houses (and everything else) have a “market price” which is the price at which similar houses, in similar neighbouhoods are being bought and sold.”
As stated previously “Market Price” only approximates the value of houses that were sold by people who were willing to sell their houses.
It is irrelvant when determining the “just compensation” of a property of which the owner was forceably removed. “Just compensation” in a legal sense is the monetary value that will compensate for the loss of that property. An analogy is a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit where the amount awarded is not the replacement value of an arm or a spouse (i.e., “market price”), it is an estimate of what value would compensate the loss.
The value to the owner who doesn’t want to move is signifcantly higher than the “market price” or the owner would have already sold the property at the market price.
In simplest terms the value I place on my house (because I don’t want to move right now) is signifcantly higher than the price anybody is willing to give me, so I stay, which is what I want to begin with. To compensate me for moving would take a lot more money that the current “market price”.
“A typical situation is one where developers are willing to pay well above market price, and most owners are only too happy to size the opportunity and sell. Then one party thinks it can win the lottery, and asks an astronomical price, estimating that the developer has no choice but to pay.”
Not really very typical at all. Developers have many strategies (besides eminent domain, which is often abused) for dealing with the last man standing problem. Its usually an issue as simple as geometry and not ever creating a situation where there is only one person left with tremendous leverage. Only government seems continually perplexed by this, which I suspect is pure laziness. Its amazing what kind of ingenius methods of acquiring tracts of land for development are available when one of your options ISN’T simply taking it.
“Often the project is killed by such obstinacy, and all the other property owners lose a golden oportunity to earn a windfall.”
If the only way for you to earn a windfall is by taking somebody elses property against their will, my sympathy is limited.
“The party that kills the scheme does not refuse to sell because of it’s sentimental attachment to the house, but because of exagerated greed or plain stupidity.”
Pure conjecture.
From Justice Thomas’ dissent in Kelo:
“Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Although citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.”
and more:
“”Obliterating a provision of the Consitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied.”
“
DS’s fisking of the rather bizarre defence of eminent domain by Jacob is spot-on.
Another point in addition: if it really were economically wise to redevelop the sort of properties targeted by the eminent domain looters, sorry, developers, then that would be reflected in a free market through the prices of the properties being targeted for demolition. In fact, many people of course buy derelict, slum buildings on the entrepreneurial hunch that the properties will be later redeveloped.
The Eminent Domain power should be limited to those things for which the minimal state has a need: courts, military installations, some roads, ports, and possibly prisons. Period.
“DS’s fisking of the rather bizarre defence of eminent domain by Jacob is spot-on.”
I described a case that I witnessed personally.
I tend to agree with DS that it is better to give up the developement scheme than to use eminent domain to implement it, becuase protecting property rights is, in principle, more important than particular developement projects.
“The Eminent Domain power should be limited to those things for which the minimal state has a need: courts, military installations, some roads, ports, and possibly prisons. Period.”
Double period. But the debate is precisely over what those things are.
Seems nobody argues that private property should never be taken, but only under which circumstances it can be taken. It also seems the Supreme Court has decided to let State courts decide the issue. Mind you – it has not decreed that developers with corrupt politicians can robb private property. (Or are state courts on the payroll of the developers ?)
It probably is a bad decision – because the SC has failed to decree narrower limits to eminent domain. But saying it is the end of private property as we know it is a wild exageration.
When the SCOTUS says it is ok to take your home foer the benefit of some property developer for no other ‘public purpose’ that to increase tax revenues it means that the state have effectlively unlimited powers to take on the behalf of the rich and itself. That you think this is NOT the end of private property indicates the moral and intellectual decay that has spread throughout the public.
Actually, after reading through some of the legal blogs (especially this one the eminent domain opposition is pretty optimistic for a number of reasons.
1. Based on precedence this is hardly an outrageous
verdict. ED for private use had been going on for nearly 100 years in the US. It actually peaked in the 50’s and 60’s and has been declining since.
2. Getting a 4/9 dissent is the best an ED case like this has ever gotten. That actually surprised some of the Kelo team.
3. More importantly the decision didn’t guarantee the use of ED for private land, it merely allowed it. States and cities are entirely free to define “public” and “just compensation” to exclude its use for private property (or more); the decision wasn’t based on the view that the government should take land to for private purposes; it was based on federalism. Although somewhat hypocritical for the SCOTUS, in the long run it’s probably a good thing.
4.
5. It generated a good deal of anger across political lines to stop this kind of thing, which is entirely doable at the state and local level. (Castle Coalition mentioned in the original post is the grass roots wing of the Institute for Justice that fought this thing.)
“for no other ‘public purpose’ that to increase tax revenues …”
That is demagogical hyperbole.
Here are some of the beneficiaries of a developement project (beside the developer himself):
1. Property owners who sell their property to the developer at good prices.
2. Property owners in nearby areas, whose property increases in value thanks to the proximity to the developed area.
3. Employees, and job seekers who get new oportunities to find a job.
4. All business owners in the area who see an increase in sales. Enterpreneurs, who get nes oportunities to start some business in the area.
5. The community in general which gets better schools, better roads, better garbage collection, facilitated by higher local tax revenues.
A new development is a GOOD thing, for all involved.
“… it means that the state have effectlively unlimited powers to take on the behalf of the rich and itself. ”
If the state took “on behalf of the poor” it would have been ok ? This is nonesense demagogy.
Since when is Perry a big champion of “the poor” ?
Come to think of it – the biggest risk taker is the developer-enterpreneur, who invests his money in such a risky and uncertain project.
This talk of “rich” developers robbing “poor” house owners is not only false, it’s blatanly insincere.
How is it ‘selling’ if it is taken against my will at a price fixed by someone else? And what determines that it is a ‘good price’ or are you falling into a Che Guevara-esque ‘intrinsic value’ fallacy?
And is that always true – would YOU want a property next to a huge development (say, a sports stadium)? Will that really improve the value of your house?
But who is to say THESE force backed uses of other people’s property are better and more productive than the alternatives that would have occurred without the compulsion? Or are you convinced that centrally planned force backed resource allocation is really more effective?
See above.
And again, why are you so sure that the benefits of centrally allocated economic activity (which is what you are describing) are more effective than non-coerced alternatives.
And all this ignores the damage caused by making property rights far less of a bedrock of both the legal and economic environment. Why risk scare capital and time investing in property for a business or home when it can just be taken away from because an alliance of state employees and well connected developers have other ideas? You views are nothing less than an immoral utilitarian justification of robbery.
When the rich are being fucked over, I point that out too, but when it comes to eminent domain/CPO, it is usually the poor, the unconnected and the undercapitalised who are getting shafted. If you dislike the verbiage, that is probably because you are trying to justify gross immorality and the reality is rather too unpalatable for you.
Jacob, many of these eminent domain seizures are occuring with businesses as well as homes, so the ‘more jobs’ benefit is occasional at best.
1. Property owners who sell their property to the developer at good prices. – And what if the last property valuation done by the state – who is paying for the land – was before a real estate boom, as is occcuring in much of the nation. Then you are paid LESS than your house was worth, AND forced to sell your home against your will.
2. Property owners in nearby areas, whose property increases in value thanks to the proximity to the developed area. – Ahh yes, more property value -> HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES. If the state decides your house is worth 2.5 times what it was, you pay at least 2.5 times more in taxes, and your property increasing in value does not increase your income. Such property tax jumps have occured in California in recent past.
3. Employees, and job seekers who get new oportunities to find a job. – Who may or may not outnumber the number of people who lose their jobs. Besides, even if ‘only’ houses are seized there will be significant cost of living adjustments. The new employees will likely be new residents, since most cities are seizing land to attract new businesses, many of whom bring some of their workforce with them. These new residents, and the recently dispossessed eminent domain victims will be seacrhing in a now smaller pool of available residences. Result, cost of living goes up as the cost of shelter rises. See San Francisco as an example. Plenty of new businesses, and a horrible housing crunch.
5. The community in general which gets better schools, better roads, better garbage collection, facilitated by higher local tax revenues. – This ‘benefit’ is based upon the presumption that more money will make schools, roads, or public services better. There is no positive correlation in the US between public school spending and the performance of school children. And if there is one thing local government is good at, it is wasting tax dollars.
Finally, you are acting as if the forcible denial of choice to property owners is value neutral to the local community. It is not morally or economically. People who have the means and drive to do, leave areas of lower choice more those with more. Those people are overwhelmingly members of the TAXPAYING classes.
Like most poxy schemes by the State to increase its tax base, this one often fails more than it succeeds.
Jacob, if you want to trust in the compassion of the State or its bureaucrats and politicans, be my guest.
But do not ask me or anyone else to do the same.
Seems I’ve been misunderstood…
“1. Property owners who sell their property to the developer at good prices.
How is it ‘selling’ if it is taken against my will at a price fixed by someone else? And what determines that it is a ‘good price’ or are you falling into a Che Guevara-esque ‘intrinsic value’ fallacy?”
If a certain area is marked for some developement project, normally most of the homeowners are willing to sell to the developer at a good price that he is offering. This is a bona-fide sale, and the homeowners are getting much more than the market price absent the developement. It is only a few who hold out and demand an even higher price. If, as a result of these exagerated demands the whole project is canceled, most of the homeowners lose the opportunity to make an unusual profit on the (true and free) sale of their home.
The developement in question in this case (and usually) included shopping malls, office space and new, modern dwellings. Such a developement brings prosperity also to nearby areas. To say that a new developement project has no net economic benefit for a given area is obviously absurd.
“And again, why are you so sure that the benefits of centrally allocated economic activity (which is what you are describing) are more effective than non-coerced alternatives.”
This is not a “centrally allocated activity”. This is a developement project undertaken by some enterpreneur, who estimates that his money is well invested, and the project will succeed. The “non-coerced” alternatives would cause the project not to be carried out, and this particular area remains undeveloped. Maybe the enterpreneur will find another location for the project, but this particular area and it’s inhabitants sustains a very tangible loss cuased by a few obstinate people.
Nevertheless, as I said, I don’t support eminent domain takings just for developement, despite the economic loss, as I deem property rights to be very important.
But the passionate claim about highway robbery is highly exagerated and false.
Most people (including Johnathan Pearce) are willing to support eminent domain for the purpose of building roads. Now what do we need roads for ? Isn’t that some kind of developement too, isn’t a road meant to add to the welfare of the people ? Like a developement ? I don’t see that there is a really big difference between the two.
Speaking of “ism”s, I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but I think I can even argue against Jonathan’s assertion on “roads, prisons” etc. I really don’t see any reason to uproot people’s houses even for those. If the government wants to build a highway/prison where my property is located, and I am not willing to sell at a reasonable price, in many cases they can build the highway/prison right next to me. This could be because there is free space available (although it may be less convinient for the project), or because the government convinced my neighbor, or many of my neighbors, to sell. This mere possibility would make me think more than twice about the future value of my property, and do I really want to hold on to it, with a prospect of a highway/prison or even a court or a hospital nearby, not to mention a shopping mall/industrial complex. That’s free market.
BTW, it is true that under such conditions the owner would probably be able to negotiate a price well above the normal market value, but is it really so bad that a poor guy (seeing as it is never the rich that stand in the way of development) hit a jackpot? I have nothing against the rich, mind you, on the contrary: I want as many people as possible to become rich.
You should all get The Castle out on DVD, good for a laugh and pro-property rights in cases of compulsory acquisitions.
Check out this link.
I can’t wait to see how this plays out.