|
Do community needs trump the rights of the owners to their property? For example, if a vacant land owner does not want to sell a piece of land needed for a community center, or refused to consider selling, would it be legal for the city government to seize that property for the center development through eminent domain ? The premise is that since you own land and property, you have an obligation to the surrounding community. |
|
No. Disregarding (for the purposes of the question) that it is not a proper function of government to be providing community centers -the only proper functions of government are to manage and fund the courts, police services and national defence- the expropriation of private property whether it be for a community center or a shopping mall is a violation of individual rights. The "needs" of many, no matter if that need is determined by government or by a simple vote of the community, do not outweigh the rights of even a single person. This is the fundamental difference between a society formed and operating on the premise of individual rights and one operating on collectivized rights. To say that a government or any other group has the right to take an individual's property away from him is to say that the government has rights with regard to property that the individual does not. The implications of which is that any person can be considered to be the property of the collective, and that premise makes slaves of us all. Property rights are a corollary of the right to life. In suggesting the collective has the right to take an individual's property you are in effect saying that the individual has no right to his own life (the freedom to take all the actions required to support, the furtherance, the fulfilment and the enjoyment of his own life) if those desires conflict with the collective will of "government" or any similarly empowered gang or mob. Note that it does not matter what the owner was doing with the property, it could have been nothing more than a fallow field or a vacant lot, regardless, the right to property is the right to own (in the most complete sense of that word), dispose of and use property be it intellectual or physical in any way you see fit. 1
Here is a Debate on this issue from the president of the Ayn Rand Institute Yaron Brook against the President and CEO of the International Economic Development Council. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/audio/2006-05-01-eminent-domain.asp The debate is posted on The Objective Standard website: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com in relation to the original question would it be legitimate or proper for a farmer to initiate force against his neighbours who refused to fix a dam on their property such that it was overwhelmingly likely to destroy his property Michael first off, the initiation of force is immoral. No man has the right to initiate force, he may have the right to use retaliatory force but he will not have the right to initiate force. Next there is a lot of context missing here. Is the Farmer's land on a flood plain created by the damning of the river in the first place? If so I would say that he should have confirmed that he would have legal recourse against the owner of the dam before he bought the property. If the above is not true and the land is adjacent to the river but the seasonal cycles of the river have been mitigated by the dam which is no longer being up-kept I would say that again, a clause in the farmers title deed stating that the dam was to be maintained would be the first course of action. If there was no such clause I would say no, because the Farmer who lives downstream of the dam can not demand that the owner of the dam spend his money, time and effort to control the natural cycle of a river (or any similar natural phenomenon) just so that he does not have to do it himself.
showing 2 of 4
show all
|
As a land owner, my only obligation to surrounding communities is to keep my property safe so as to not endanger them.
Interestingly, the Republican candidate for governor of NY promises to use eminent domain to prevent construction of the Islamic center. In one foul blow, he plans to negate two of the first ten amendments to the constitution.
As to the legality of the seizure of the property, as long as government has the guns, they can "legally" seize one's property. Depressing, isn't it?