> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>>Not necessarily. Even in an advanced socialist regime, it would not be
>>common to 'take' one person's wardrobe for public purposes. The kind of
>>property rights leftists (or most leftists) are concerned to challenge
>>are rights to productive property, not rights to property in its
>>original sense of pertaining to the person.
>
> Yes, thank you!
Except that wasn't the principle involved. By the legal principle at stake, Wal-Mart would have been as protected from appropriation as Ma Kettle.
Look, I know folks want to argue over the substance of economic development, but that wasn't the legal principle decided. The question was government power over ALL property within their jurisdictions.
After this decision, a lot of folks will no doubt bring cases around the distinctions of what constitutes a fair value for one's home and whether corrupt deals around economic development violate due process -- as opposed to takings. In fact, Kennedy's concurrence practically begs for a due process lawsuit against a corrupt economic development plan.
But THIS DECISION was about the rights of property versus democratic control. Period.
And democracy won. Hurray.
Nathan Newman