But the eminent domain ruling is indefensible. The notion that economic growth, job creation and increased tax revenue constitute a public good is absurd. The notion that these "public" "goods" override the right to property is even more absurd.
The implication of this ruling is that property rights are rights only as long as the government for them to be so. This runs counter to the idea that rights preceed government and that government exists to secure a just order and safeguard the rights of the people under its authority. It would seem now that instead of deriving from the traditions of society ultimately from God, our rights flow from the government, and what the government giveth, the government can taketh away in the name of some arbitrary "public good".
What is particualrly galling is that any public good that would be derived from New London's exercise of eminent domain in this case is incidental to what is actually being done. The city of New London is taking the property of one group of people and giving it to another, plain and simple. If they were going to build, say a police or fire station, something that serves a direct public service, New London may have a case, but there is no inherent public use here. Instead, the rights of the people have gone out the window so New London can make a quick buck. Disgraceful.
No comments:
Post a Comment