fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (08/30/85)
> = Piotr Berman >Imagine the following. The Supreme Court actually defines property as >the fundamental right. Not *the* fundamental right, Piotr. *A* fundamental right, meaning a right of overwhelming importance which all human beings are entitled to; one just as important as freedom of speech and religion. This is what I meant. In my original posting I believe I did say *a*, and not *the*. This is not the *legal* definition of a fundamental right, mind you. I've forgotten it, but the upshot of it is that once the Supreme Court has defined a right as fundamental, it becomes extremely difficult for local, state, and federal governments to violate it. >Would any taxes (income, property, sales, per capita) remain legal? I'm sure the Supreme Court would find a way to make taxes that support law enforcement agencies and national defense legal, since those functions are (it seems to me) essential to guaranteeing fundamental rights. Con- sidering how far the Court has been willing to go in twisting the Constitution to set policies it wants to apply, I don't think something as intelligent as this legal point would be a problem. >Can you elaborate, what laws would be deleted? >Zoning regulations? Eminent domain? You bet. Zoning regulations and eminent domain would go right out the window. This would be one of the greatest single triumphs of the judicial process. There is simply *no case whatsoever* for zoning laws, provided property rights are respected. Zoning laws were adopted around the turn of the century in an unquestioned frenzy of economic planning, before people understood what property rights were all about. Houston, Texas, has no zoning laws at all, and it's a thriving metropolis. Should the subject come up, we can talk more about zoning laws. Eminent domain is also a *terrible* abuse of state power, with hideous consequences for wrecking people's lives. Consider the Poletown incident of a few years ago: A GM plant was closing down, to be relocated out of state. This would have hurt the Michigan economy and throw the plant's employees out of work, but it would also have benefited the economy and the unemplpoyed of the state where the plant was going (I forget where). Rather than let the company go peacefully, the government of Michigan was able to work out an arrangemnt which induced management to keep the plant open. How? By giving GM land for new facilities in Poletown under its power of eminent domain. When the inhabitants of Poletown replied that they were not interested in moving out, they were taken to court. I don't recall the outcome of the case, but it was portrayed as an example of big, bad companies versus the little guy. In fact, it was a case of eminent domain being use to trample all over the little guy (who supposedly isn't supposed to care too much about property rights), and it should never have got to court because no government should have the power of eminent domain. I do not believe that eminent domain is necessary for public works. If a project is *really* useful, a way can be found to get the resources together without forcing people to sell things they do not wish to part with. When you weigh the roads that *might* not be built against the injustices that wouldn't be committed, I think we're far better off without eminent domain. Note: I also emphatically believe that zoning laws and eminent domain are *morally wrong*, as they violate some basic natural rights of human beings. However, most discussions along this line end with the disputants disagreeing about fundamental axioms of political thought; not very productive. Hence my emphasis on the consequences of eminent domain and zoning laws. >What about land redistributed via eminent domain? Should it be returned? I'd have to say no, just because that would be too complicated. I personally would favor simply admitting the fact that we screwed a lot of people through eminent domain, and while we're not going to compensate them for their losses we're not going to do it any more. Uninspiring, perhaps, but more realistic. >Piotr Berman --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley