Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kelo Case: One Giant Leap Toward Fascist America
The Objectivist Center ^ | June 24, 2005 | Edward Hudgins

Posted on 06/24/2005 7:42:35 AM PDT by Ed Hudgins

One Giant Leap Toward Fascist America, Edward Hudgins, Executive Director, The Objectivist Center, ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org

The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the house in which she was born 87 year old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived there with her for 60 years. Why? Because the government wants to seize their property, bulldoze theirs and many other houses and to sell the land to other businesses and developers for private uses. While one must take great care in choosing words in political discussions, one must not mince them either. This decision in the Kelo vs. New London case is another giant step towards classical corporatism or fascism in America.

In this case the city council of New London, Connecticut decided to condemn and take the homes and businesses of a number of citizens, including the Derys and Susette Kelo, who filed the case, in the name of economic development. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows governments to take property by eminent domain, as long as just compensation is paid, but only for public uses. These uses have always been understood to mean for necessary government-provided infrastructure such as courthouses or roads.

Otherwise property should be sacrosanct. Individuals, businesses or governments might seek to purchase it, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is his or her right -- repeat -- right, meaning one need not secure the permission or blessing of one's neighbors, government or "society" in order to own property. But in recent decades politicians have become more brazen in their elitist attempts to remodel our lives and communities. They more and more have wielded the eminent domain sword to seize private homes and enterprises in order to turn them over to different businesses or developers that they believe will use the property in ways that are better for the community.

Now the Supreme Court has undermined fundamental private property rights by ruling, in effect, that governments can pretty much seize property for any reason they see fit.

Thus we have a situation in which, unlike under socialism, individuals can still hold title to their own property. But unlike under a free market system, they do not own their property by right. They hold it at the discretion of political authorities who can yank it away at a whim. This is the economic principle of the classical corporatist or fascist regime.

To call it corporatist or fascist is no mere epithet. It designates a system in which the veneer of property rights is maintained but in which political authorities have extensive powers to limit rights in the name of economic planning. This system by necessity means that the normal state of affairs is political conflict -- either out in the open in elections and legislation or behind closed doors with lobbyists and politicians making deals. It means that no one's property is truly secure.

Some pundits complain that Americans are too apathetic about politics. Yet in a corporatist regime everyone will be politically involved but for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals, whether through misplaced idealism, pandering paternalism or pure predation, will be involved to threaten the liberties of their neighbors while others will be involved in a never-ending battle to defend their lives, liberties and property. Everyone will need to be on guard against their neighbors. Instead of a peaceful society we will have a war of all against all.

Pundits complain that our society has become too nasty and uncivil, with every issue in life becoming a partisan political battle. That is the nature of our corporatist system and the Supreme Court's Kelo decision stokes the fires of conflict right down to the grass roots level.

What are the Derys and Ms. Kelo to think about their city council persons? What are they to think about their neighbors who fail to stand up for their property rights by denouncing these politicians, shunning them like the plague and voting them out of office? The only moral feelings they can have are resentment, and a sense of violation and deep injustice.

The Kelo decision is a wakeup call for the restoration the property rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property rights. Congress could limit the scope of eminent domain to narrow public purposes and bar all takings of property for ultimately private uses.

Good fences make good neighbors. The right to private property is the cornerstone of any peaceful and prosperous society that respects the rights of the individual. In this battle there can be no fence-sitters; there's no better case than the Kelo's to demonstrate that property rights are civil rights.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: civilrights; connecticut; constitution; davidsouter; eminantdomain; eminentdomain; fascist; imminentdoom; kelo; kelodecision; newlondon; property; propertyrights; supremecourt; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: Ladysmith

"Wesley Horton and Thomas Londregan, the attorneys for the city, celebrated the court decision as a vindication of the work the city's planners had done in crafting a development scheme that would benefit the public through tax dollars, jobs and a new public walkway along the river.

“This case was never about taking from one person to give to another. It was not some kind of land grab,” Londregan said. “It was about New London, its six square miles and its economic survival.”

He and Horton said it was the careful development plan that proved the city's good intentions and won over the court to their side. "
__________________________________________________________

A message to Horton and Londregan: A town that must steal property from it's rightful owners doesn't deserve to survive...


21 posted on 06/24/2005 12:07:24 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (illegally posting on an expired tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
In any case, you are right, government is making a top down decision on the common good of the community, and implementing it with central planning. It's pure socialism. And since the beneficiary and partner in crime is business development, it's also socialism's first cousin, fascism.

Utilitarianism. Which brings it right into line next to abortion, euthanasia, and the medical community's advancement toward organ removal. All for the common good. All about best use of a resource.

22 posted on 06/24/2005 12:14:38 PM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
A message to Horton and Londregan: A town that must steal property from it's rightful owners doesn't deserve to survive...

Hear hear!!

23 posted on 06/24/2005 12:20:33 PM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA) Wisconsin Hunter Shootings: If you want on/off the WI Hunters ping list, please let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Nonsense. You don't seem to have even the slightest grasp on how Prop 13, or eminant domain regulations operate in the state of California.

If you do have the knowledge then correct it. As far as ED regs ... tell us about how it works there. I'm speculating.

24 posted on 06/24/2005 12:33:16 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (An elected Legislature can trample a man's rights as easy as a King can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

I confess to not being familiar with the term Utilitarianism. Sounds pretty much like socialism, though.


25 posted on 06/24/2005 12:45:26 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Public interest is nothing more than the American version of the Marxist "common good."

No, common interest in this case is more likely "how much cash the developer slipped the local politicians under the table".

26 posted on 06/24/2005 12:57:12 PM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

Absolutely.


27 posted on 06/24/2005 7:55:00 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Marxism has not only failed to promote human freedom, it has failed to produce food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins; atlaw
Thanks, Ed, for posting this! Saved me the trouble. :-)

Atlaw, I have no idea who the freeper lawyers are, except yourself. Do you know if there's a ping list for freeper lawyers? What do you think about the viability of this idea:

The Kelo decision is a wakeup call for the restoration the property rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property rights. Congress could limit the scope of eminent domain to narrow public purposes and bar all takings of property for ultimately private uses.

28 posted on 06/24/2005 11:44:06 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING FOR PLEASURE: SQL Queries for Mere Mortals by Hernandez & Viescas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
A disgusting ruling by an arrogant court.

Check out this petition site:

http://www.petitiononline.com/5amend/petition-sign.html

An email correspondent's comment:

"FOLKS: This past week, SCOTUS (Supreme Court OF The United States) once again, has attempted to rewrite OUR Constitution to totally change the original intent as written by the Founders.

Eminent Domain was NEVER intended to be used by government EXCEPT to obtain property for roads, public buildings, schools, military bases and other necessary government usage.

This past week, the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution, stating that it was legal for cities to condemn private property under Eminent Domain, to purchase and then resell to developers and other special interests, supposedly to benefit the community and the city by increasing tax revenues.

THIS IS TOTALLY BOGUS!

Please click on the link below and add your signature to the petition for a Constitutional Amendment to put a stop to this invitation to even more corruption within government and the theft of private homes and property for the financial benefit of a few.

http://www.petitiononline.com/5amend/petition-sign.html"

29 posted on 06/26/2005 6:16:22 AM PDT by RAY ( Heroes not, the U.S. Supreme Court!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson