 |
| A political cartoon depicting eminent domain |
Eminent domain is the government power to acquire private property with the payment of just compensation. The power is most often used to clear way for a public facility or good, such as a highway. It has also been used for reasons of public safety -- as was the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. More recently, the Supreme Court, in the case Kelo vs. City of New London (2005), affirmed that economic growth qualifies as “public use” and the government can transfer a property acquired by eminent domain to a private developer for the purpose of increasing municipal revenue. Defined in the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain is a constitutional power. However, people still question its use and potential abuse. Should the government be able to strip away one’s private property, even with just compensation?
I believe that John Locke, a 17th century philosopher and social contract theorist, would argue against eminent domain. More specifically, he would disagree with the government's process of acquiring a property by eminent domain. He would also see eminent domain as a breach of a social contract.
 |
| John Locke |
In 1689, Locke outlined his theory of property in the Second Treatise of Government. He asserts that property of an individual includes his or her own body and anything on which he or she has applied labor. For example, if you were to pick an apple from a tree, it would be yours because you put your labor onto the apple. Initially, Locke places a limitation on property accumulation. We should not accumulate more than we need because the extra will spoil and go to waste. However, the introduction of money has made this limit obsolete. The individual with money is free to buy without bounds. If the homeowner and government were to negotiate and agree on a price, Locke would see that as fair game since a mutual agreement and exchange happened. The problem, however, is that just compensation does not involve negotiation and agreement; it is far from mutual. The government names a price, and the homeowner has no other choice but to accept it, even if he or she disagrees with the offer. If this were the case, then the government would technically be taking the homeowner’s property without approval; they cannot rightfully claim it. This is where eminent domain is wrong.
Locke’s disapproval of eminent domain can also be seen in his theory of government, which is also outlined in the Second Treatise of Government. Locke believes that property is most threatened in the state of nature. He states that, while in the state of nature, men are free “ . . . to order their own actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature,” (Locke, 8). However, the self-administration of laws is unstable, and we need an impartial mediator to keep us in check. Locke suggests the formation of social contracts to help us out of the state of nature. Through social contracts, we give our consent to be ruled by the government and ask for three things in return: codified laws, impartial judges and most importantly, the protection of our property.
 |
| Eminent domain breaches the social contract |
What are your thoughts on eminent domain? Is it justified? Should the government be able to use it?
Images used:
Cartoon - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNspxRPnG4X7_uZ-Bs06m_zhSW7h065d8VW_4zvV-5fPVdRJO0_5NV7LRErHrDP32PzENnTcALOztewhTlAPLteb4fMXW6hP0ndEV2yzWmL7ov3jN-oe4Zxwc5a6s1UkK7hbO_-3F9BcE/s1600/Eminent-Domain-cartoon-Brookins.jpg
Locke - http://faculty.frostburg.edu/mbradley/psyography/John_Locke.jpg
Contract - http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sites/default/files/images/web/t/i/n/ripped_contract.height-165.jpg
Great post David! First of all, I think you are right that Locke would disapprove of the non-negotiable nature of eminent domain. However, I prefer to give the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt most of the time. I do not think that the government is necessarily "out to get" people with eminent domain. Your example about Centralia Pennsylvannia was so interesting! I had never heard of that before, but it sounds crazy. I think this is a perfect example of how eminent domain can be extremely helpful. Nobody would have gotten any decent money from their property without the government reimbursing them. No one wants to live on land that has a huge coal mine fire raging beneath it that causes adverse health affects and is predicted to last 250 years! What a trip. At the end of the article about Centralia, it seems to me that some former citizens of the ghost town made a ridiculous claim. Some believed that the government's use of eminent domain in this scenario was a scheme to gain rights to all the minerals below Centralia because they were worth "billions of dollars." This does not sound practical at all to me. Eminent domain is a good thing because it can solve horrible situations like those faced by Centralia's former residents.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post, I had never really delved into the fundamentals and outcomes of eminent domain. I think that the government must see eminent domain as a aspect of law that forces people to think and act in a manner of cause over self. However im sure there are more reasons than that for which the government uses eminent domain, possibly for personal advancement of their own goals. I don't think eminent domain is just, I would agree with Locke on this one. I think that there are many other factors that go into removing someone from their home than can be fixed by a monetary compensation. For example sentimentality, location, the hardships of finding a new home etc. Something about this needs to change, it seems wrong to just remove people from their personal spaces because of a bigger cause, whatever that may be.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post, especially considering the situation in Centralia, Pennsylvania you offered as an example. I think in a situation like that eminent domain is definitely very useful, and certainly beneficial to the residents that were then able to relocate away from that area. I would think that in most cases the government wouldn't abuse this kind of power, but if it did then the property owner could always respond with a legal retaliation. For example, this article discusses a farmer who won a lawsuit in such a situation: http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9039345
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I believe that your interpretation of Locke's potential view on eminent domain is sound, I also think he would oppose such measures taken by the government on the grounds that it is ultimately defeating the purpose of the government in the first place. On the other hand, some might also see eminent domain as an ability the government needs to have in order to function properly - for example the government wouldn't be doing its job if it neglected to construct highways and such as you mentioned. As noted by many of the "social contract philosophers" we studied in the course, we as people make many sacrifices (by giving up our freedoms) in order to enjoy the security of a government. Maybe eminent domain is just one of those sacrifices.