Posted on 01/26/2016 9:13:45 AM PST by Isara
Margaret Thatcher, when she was British Prime Minister, used a simple formula to describe the economic freedoms due to a properly free people: "A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master." This was, in her view, "the British inheritance."
Her thinking, influenced by centuries of English jurisprudence and political philosophy, provides a modern statement of the same rights that America's founders sought to bestow upon their posterity. Thatcher's phrase embodies the conservative view of the role of government and of citizens' rights in a well-functioning and free society.
Property ownership exists in some form in every nation, but it is often informal. Even in the most unfree nations, the powerful elite feel secure about what they own, in part because the property rights of others are theirs to trample.
What distinguishes America from such countries is not its abundance of natural resources or the race of its people, but its scrupulous cultural and legal dedication to protecting everyone's private property rights. This critical application of the rule of law is what allowed a massive middle class to form and grow on a scale unprecedented in history.
This is not some minor point or obscure issue. This is what made America great.
This is why anyone who wants the United States to remain a great country should be concerned that Donald Trump, who is running for the presidency, defends his own use of government to trample other people's property rights as a positive thing. Merely defending eminent domain, a valid legal principle recognized in the U.S. Constitution for obtaining private land for needed public uses, is one thing. But using it for private gain is quite another. And it is not as though Trump used it long ago and now disavows his actions as wrong.
But he has not seen the error of his ways. To this day, Trump defends his own use of state force to trample the property rights of a person less powerful than himself. He views it as a positive good and regrets only that the courts stopped him in one well-known instance.
In 1994, as we have previously noted, Trump tried to use his connections and wealth to make government his tool for plundering an Atlantic City widow named Vera Coking. He wanted to build a parking garage where her house stood, and so he got a local government agency to force the sale for just 25 percent of what she had previously been offered for it. The agency would then transfer ownership of the property to his company.
Fortunately, Trump lost that case in court. He has offered various comments when asked about it, but they all amount to the same thing. His argument has been that a man's home is his castle only as long as the government cannot find a use for it that better maximizes tax revenues. As he once put it to a reporter for this publication, "If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs. ..."
On other occasions, Trump has defended and praised the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which justified eminent domain abuse. The decision prompted a huge backlash and spurred legislators in several states to make new laws to protect homeowners from people like Trump. Even Bernie Sanders, who is running president on the Democratic side, has spoken against Kelo; the socialist Vermont senator is more conservative on property rights than Trump.
Trump's corporatist and authoritarian vision of central planning might work for a CEO who is granted great power to operate his own company as he sees fit. But it can never be acceptable way for a president to govern a free republic under a constitution. Trump's departure from such a foundational American principle is one of many reasons why conservatives voting in early caucuses and primaries should think twice before jumping on to his authoritarian bandwagon.
No candidate will be the perfect conservative,
Some are better - some not so good.
But the major objective has to be to keep Hillary and any other democrat out of the White House.
We can’t allow Hillary to win because we split hairs and find the republican nominee is flawed in some way and doesn’t meet our idea of the perfect conservative.
Cruz would be my first choice but I will vote against the democrat no matter who the republicans run, including Trump.
Trump may have done a lot of things that do not square with conservative values but if he becomes the candidate he gets my vote.
He says he will build a border fence, shut down illegal immigration, roll back Obamacare, repeal Obama’s most egregious executive orders and implement policies to bring industry back to America.
That’s a pretty good start and things we will never see if another democrat squirms into the White House..
You seem to take Trump on his word. I don’t. I don’t find him at all trustworthy.
Eminent domain is for “public use” of private property, e.g. to locate roads and schools. It is not for “transferring private property to a third party for public gain”.
I’m still angry about Kelo but now at least I think I have a better understanding of the reasoning which led to it.
So if he is the nominee who would you vote for?
Hillary?
Remember - not voting works to the advantage of the democrat.
You are lying McGruff. The ad never said the home was bulldozed. And I got some money to back up that assertion if you want to go there.
Bump for our Constitution!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.