[net.politics.theory] Governments and property rights

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