Kelo Case: One Giant Leap Toward Fascist America

The Objectivist Center ^ | June 24, 2005 | Edward Hudgins

[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.

[Borges]

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.

This is the key. If such legislation were to be passed on it got back to the SC I wonder if they would claim Congress can not Constitutionally deny someon'e s 'eminent domain' to sieze property? It didn't seem to be inffered here.

[SlowBoat407]

We'll see the true spirit of the community when we find out if the offices and shops built on that property get any business. If I lived there, I would be boycotting anyone who tried to profit from the stolen property. If the citizens have any guts about them, they will take a stand economically.

[Ladysmith]

This home in New London, Conn., is one of several at the center of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. Susette Kelo and other homeowners had refused to sell their property for what their city said was a needed private development project.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

Smith Street property owner Bill Von Winkle reacts to the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling that sided with the City of New London.

Susette Kelo, the owner of a house on East Street in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, fights back tears as she speaks on the phone to a supporter from the South, following the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain that sided with the City of New London.

From here.

[kevkrom]

And for all of those who call conservatives "fascist", note that it was the five liberal judges who sided against private property, not the conservative ones.

[Willie Green]

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.

So SCOTUS subordinated our individual rights to bring us into compliance with WTO regulations?
So what else is new?
This will only get worse under CAFTA.

[EternalVigilance]

When Terri Schiavo died, the prohibition on government killing of innocent American citizens contained in the Fifth Amendment was ignored.

This decision simply carries that miscarriage of justice forward.

The Fifth is the heart of the Bill of Rights. These actions are a stab at that heart.

It is up to us whether those wounds are fatal to this once-free republic or not.

[nothingnew]

It's a sad sad day in America. The Supreme Court has lost its mind, its honor and its decency.

I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.

I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Ingtar]

Too bad we cannot seem to get the word out on which justices voted against this travesty.

[Travis McGee]

Fortunately, our Founding Fathers included a fascism antidote in the Constitution.

[CzarChasm]

note to the author - don't use the term "corporatist" as a synonym for 'fascist'; they are not synonymous, at least according to dictionary.com, and most casual readers will not understand that "evil corporations" are not the culprits - evil politicians and ignorant judges are.

[Centurion2000]

Here's sopme more political fallout from this.

One) California's proposition 13 has just been effectively gutted to prevent the government from cranking up property taxes.

Two) Liberal states will NEVER enact property protections into their legislatures and state constitutions.

Example: You have a 2.5 million dollar home in San Francisco that you paid 400,000 for in 1990. You now pay say 600,000 in property taxes on it.
Now the city of San Francisco can condemn your house, pay you 120,000 (20% of tax base) and turn around and sell this land to another developer or even a real estate agent who will then sell it to someone that is going to pay 2.5 million in property tax rates.

People are going to get shot over this.

[sinbad17]

Well Mr. Jefferson said we need a little revolution every now and then and maybe this will bring one on! Time to restore the United States to the way it used to be and the hell with political correctness ,social awareness, and cowtowing to all the never do wells of society. And remove all the legislating judges too while we're at it.

[sergeantdave]

The primary tenet of a fascist government is government control of private property.

In some areas there are zoning restrictions on what bushes can be planted and the color one may paint a house.

Then we have so-called smart growth restrictions on how many homes may be built on a piece of land.

And let's not forget that land can be seized under the Endangered Species Act to create de facto government nature reserves. All without paying a penny of compensation, of course.

Now we have a ruling where property may be seized for the "public interest." Public interest is nothing more than the American version of the Marxist "common good."

Yeh, I'd say we're moving along on the fascist highway.

[rawcatslyentist]

A solid case of being hanged with the rope we manufactured.
All we need now is video of the Hildabest banging her shoe.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." ---- Abraham Lincoln

[lilylangtree]

Just goes to show the liberal leftist judges rule SCOTUS. SCOTUS isn't worth saving. Down with SCOTUS!

[mac_truck]

Example: You have a 2.5 million dollar home in San Francisco that you paid 400,000 for in 1990. You now pay say 600,000 in property taxes on it.

This is wildly inaccurate. The tax basis in this example is about 1% of $400,000 plus fifteen years of incremental adjustments, ad volerum, and parcel taxes. That total is nowhere near the 600K figure you imagine it is.

Now the city of San Francisco can condemn your house, pay you 120,000 (20% of tax base) and turn around and sell this land to another developer or even a real estate agent who will then sell it to someone that is going to pay 2.5 million in property tax rates.

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.

[jonascord]

The problem is that the people coming for your property are the police, sent by the city managers YOU voted for.

So, every LEO has to make a decision as to where they will stand. Are they going to stop the thieves, or continue to work for them?

[Sam Cree]

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

Justice Stevens argument does amount to a declaration that the seizure was justified because the city had a plan to implement the common good. As opposed to individual rights, which are now secondary in the USA apparently.

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.

[Travis McGee]

Time will tell.