[lbo-talk] When is private property NOT?

J. Tyler jptyler at earthlink.net
Thu Jun 30 00:43:29 PDT 2005


Nathan Newman wrote:


>So if you grab property for a free road, and private trucking companies
use
>it to increase their profits, that's not public use?
>
>And if you grab land for a government run Tennessee Valley Authority
and
>give subsidized power to private businesses, which increases their
profits,
>that's not a public use.
>
>And if the government provides subsidized health care to an employer,
>cutting his health care costs and increasing his profits, that's not
public
>interest either?"

You're ignoring the criterion I specified, which was that of a "direct and immediate" benefit to private profit. No private entity owns public roads, and hence nobody is directly and immediately benefitting by private profit. Ditto with the TVA. And ditto again with subsidized health care, although I fail to see how that could ever implicate the practice of eminent domain. (Moreover, subsidizing employer-provided health care is in no way in the public interest. It creates dependence, and therefore is against the public interest. Who wants to be dependent on their employer for a basic human necessity?)


>The point is that all sorts of government-owned operations heavily
benefit
>private profits.

True. But not directly and immediately. There is no reason why there can be no legal limitation on the use of eminent domain for enterprises that do not directly and immediately benefit private profit. It's a simple, straightforward principle of law that can be applied to any case. If you can think of a situation which defies its straightforward application, I would be interested to hear it.


>And conversely, government can lease land to private industry -- as
happened
>in the New London case --and potentially gain public benefits such as
>increased jobs and wages.

Increased jobs and wages is not a public benefit. It's a public detriment. Dependence on investors is not in the public interest. If the government wants to use eminent domain, it should own what it takes (and can provide employment and increased wages through its ownership). That's the principle that preserves the socialist aspects of eminent domain without destroying the concept. And it's easily applied, to boot.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list