A 500 word essay I wrote for the Koch Summer Internship application…
One of the fundamental principles of liberty is that an individual gets to control the fruits of her labor. She may use her property as she sees fit, as long as she isn’t harming anybody else.
Ultimately, private property fosters prosperity because it encourages people to cooperate with each other instead of using force. If I want to use someone else’s property to print a pamphlet, I must convince him by either persuasion or trade. If both of us decide the exchange is worth it, then we will find it beneficial to engage in it.
Sometimes a local government would like to use an individual’s property for either public or commercial purposes. The individual decides whether or not it is worth it to sell the property. In the private market, when an exchange is not worth it to one party, the exchange doesn’t happen. In the public market, the government uses what’s called eminent domain to appropriate the property.
In 2005, The Supreme Court granted cities the authority to use eminent domain for economic development in the case Kelo v. City of New London. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the benefits to the community of economic growth can outweigh an individual’s right to her property through the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The implications of this are fairly dire; a central planner can steal property to use it in a way he sees fit. Businesses have strong incentives to lobby local governments to take away private land of unwilling sellers. Commercial development will almost always increase tax receipts on the margin, so there is no upper bound to how much can be plundered through the guise of economic development.
There’s an economic fallacy here when the government claims a piece of land isn’t being used efficiently. What Coase’s Theory tells us is that the final distribution of property has to be efficient as long as the transaction costs aren’t overwhelming. Efficiency is measured by value, and if an individual values his property more than someone is willing to pay for it, then the outcome is efficient.
Another fallacy is that the government can accurately pay “just compensation” for the property taken. The only just compensation is one that’s agreeable to both parties. An estimated market value will not be the amount a person values keeping his property, especially considering it is his home.
The solution is for state level legislation to restrict eminent domain and create more protection than the Supreme Court was willing to offer citizens. When the federal government encroaches on individual liberties, the states have the ability to offer more protections.
To that end, there must be people who fight against the abuses of eminent domain. The taxpayers must band together and oppose special interests who wield force to evict people from their home. The message clearly stated is, “government should not steal people’s land.”
Eminent Domain
A 500 word essay I wrote for the Koch Summer Internship application…
One of the fundamental principles of liberty is that an individual gets to control the fruits of her labor. She may use her property as she sees fit, as long as she isn’t harming anybody else.
Ultimately, private property fosters prosperity because it encourages people to cooperate with each other instead of using force. If I want to use someone else’s property to print a pamphlet, I must convince him by either persuasion or trade. If both of us decide the exchange is worth it, then we will find it beneficial to engage in it.
Sometimes a local government would like to use an individual’s property for either public or commercial purposes. The individual decides whether or not it is worth it to sell the property. In the private market, when an exchange is not worth it to one party, the exchange doesn’t happen. In the public market, the government uses what’s called eminent domain to appropriate the property.
In 2005, The Supreme Court granted cities the authority to use eminent domain for economic development in the case Kelo v. City of New London. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the benefits to the community of economic growth can outweigh an individual’s right to her property through the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The implications of this are fairly dire; a central planner can steal property to use it in a way he sees fit. Businesses have strong incentives to lobby local governments to take away private land of unwilling sellers. Commercial development will almost always increase tax receipts on the margin, so there is no upper bound to how much can be plundered through the guise of economic development.
There’s an economic fallacy here when the government claims a piece of land isn’t being used efficiently. What Coase’s Theory tells us is that the final distribution of property has to be efficient as long as the transaction costs aren’t overwhelming. Efficiency is measured by value, and if an individual values his property more than someone is willing to pay for it, then the outcome is efficient.
Another fallacy is that the government can accurately pay “just compensation” for the property taken. The only just compensation is one that’s agreeable to both parties. An estimated market value will not be the amount a person values keeping his property, especially considering it is his home.
The solution is for state level legislation to restrict eminent domain and create more protection than the Supreme Court was willing to offer citizens. When the federal government encroaches on individual liberties, the states have the ability to offer more protections.
To that end, there must be people who fight against the abuses of eminent domain. The taxpayers must band together and oppose special interests who wield force to evict people from their home. The message clearly stated is, “government should not steal people’s land.”