So why is the concept of private property so central to freedom and why has it been the driving force behind western civilization? It is because without the ability to acquire and own property safe from government confiscation there is no incentive to work extra hard for yourself. This has been proven over and over again. When the shackles of government are loosened, the creativity and productivity of the people pours forth as witnessed during the Renaissance and again later with the creation of America. When people can keep and own the products of their labor, they will work with the extra diligence to amass wealth. This was amply proven by the stagnation in Russia that followed the Bolshevik Revolution and in China by the reign of repression from Chairman Mao Tse-tung. The failure of the Marxist doctrine to improve the life of people has been amply demonstrated.
An attempt was made to write property rights protection into our Constitution and the early letters between the framers tell that it was to go into the phrase of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The "pursuit of happiness" was a compromise because of the slavery issue. In those days slaves were considered property and it was felt that to protect property directly in the Constitution would have perpetuated slavery. Therefore, we have depended on case law for two hundred years to secure our possessions. Unfortunately for everyone, that is starting to come apart.
Two opinions in different state courts undermine all that has gone before. In California, the state Supreme Court has decided 5 to 2 that when government takes property for public use the owner is not entitled to damages above appraised value if the owner benefits from the condemnation. In this case the MTA Green Line took a partial piece of land in El Segundo for a light-rail station diminishing the improvement value of the balance. The Court claims the owner benefitted from having a train station next door and so was not entitled to damages. The case is being viewed as a significant victory for government-as if government needs more victories.
The second case is more troubling. A Texas District Court approved the city of Hurst, a suburb of Fort Worth, using eminent domain to force over 100 homeowners off their land which was then turned over to a shopping center developer. Not even for a new mall, but for expansion of an existing one in order to be more competitive with the mall in the next town. As if that were not bad enough, in typical Redevelopment fashion, the City agreed to share sales tax revenues back to the developer to offset his land acquisition costs. The developer is the Indiana-based Simon De Bartolo Group, one of the largest, most successful shopping center developers in America-who certainly needs no help from 100 families in Texas.
Eminent domain was designed for taking property for public use, i.e., roads, schools, parks, utility lines. It was not meant to create profit for private individuals or companies. When the government is the agent and enforcer of private wealth creation, then the process is as corrupt as the laws of the King were and we all slip back toward serfdom.