Tuesday, June 28th 2005
When they’re Right, they’re Right
After this month’s Supreme Court chainsaw massacre of our liberties, my only consolation is that I get to see the reaction from the Left. To see them deal with the fact that the Left was wrong and the Right was right. The reactions can be put into three categorizes:
First, there is the “partisan over principle”/”power over principle” reaction. As in, who cares about the decision as long as my side wins. In other words, they’re against it so I’m for it. Two examples from Daily Kos, one on Raich the other on Kelo. Here’s a lovely quote to demonstrate this (lack of) principle:
“It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types.”
I’m sure that when a city tears down an elderly lady’s house in order to build a Walmart, she can at least be cheered up by the fact that “right-wing libertarian types” lost.
Next, we have those that are a little more fair. They acknowledge that the Right can rule the right way sometimes, but in those cases it’s entirely accidental and not because of any commitment to freedom. From Paul Bruno’s blog (in response to a post by jonp):
For a hard-line originalist like Thomas, freedom is of no legal importance whatever.
So, yes, Thomas may accidentally do liberty a few favors. But that’s no reason to give him a freedom-loving shout-out. At best, a guy like Thomas can be a useful idiot.
And finally, we have the honest ones. Those who can get past their partisanship and acknowledge, that, yeah, sometimes the Right can be right. A commentary in today’s Berkeley Daily Planet does just that:
So, if you keep score on what the courts are doing in our country, it is important to analyze what’s going on in a case by case basis. Just because a judge is considered a “liberal” doesn’t mean that judge will make a good decision, and just because that judge is conservative doesn’t mean the judge is not committed to preserving fundamental liberties.
Let’s expand this: just because a person is conservative/libertarian doesn’t mean that he or she is not committed to preserving fundamental liberties. And just because a person is liberal doesn’t mean that he or she is committed to preserving fundamental liberties. I think that this post from TheAgitator really captures this fact. Who was in favor of freedom in the medical marijuana and eminent domain cases in front of the Supreme Court? Here’s a hint: Not liberals.
Anyway, there’s no hope that the situation will get any better in the near future. Our best hope for liberty, Janice Rogers Brown, was confirmed to an appeals court a month ago. She is the type of libertarian-conservative that we need on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Republicans only confirmed her because she was a black woman. This piece from the National Journal pretty much confirms it. No Republican was willing to defend her views, because, let’s admit it, no Republican in power shares these views anymore:
What Republicans support is not so much Brown’s philosophy as her life story and the opportunity to put a conservative black woman on the federal bench. After all, Brown is a small-government ideologue in an age of Big Government conservatism. Republicans control the whole federal government and are not shy about using it.
And then you realize it: From our big government judiciary to our big government executive and legislative branches, we’re screwed.
i haven’t read much about reactions to the property case, but I would think that the reactions would be different depending on which type of conservative or liberal you talk to: for example, i would imagine big-business conservatives would be happy with the decision as would big-government liberals; on the other hand, i would green-liberals would be very disappointed with the decision as they’ve been ranting against unchecked development, sprawl, and the ‘walmartization’ of america for a long time; i’m kinda surprised that libertarians are so unhappy with the decision because if the government weren’t involved i don’t think they’d care; in this case the government forced someone to sell property for development, but if the ‘market’ had forced the person off her land because of rising property taxes associated with development i don’t think libertarians would care
Comment by kcdem — 6/28/2005 @ 9:27 pm
kcdem: The vast majority of conservatives and liberals have come out against the Kelo decision. About the only people defending it now are on the editorial board of the NY Times, developers, and the few that I mentioned that do not support property rights. Basically anyone who owns property or ever hopes to own some sees that this is not right.
I personally am not worried about a growth of Walmart and Starbucks [to name the big 2] around the country and around the world. I see it as progress, the triumph of capitalism and globalization. What I don’t like is when these big businesses curry favor with governments in order to gain an advantage. Corporate welfare is just another type of welfare, and conservatives should be against it as well. Property rights are fundamental, so the government should not be able to take your property away for their benefit and the benefit of a business.
The market alone cannot force someone off land that they own. If you bring property taxes into the picture, then that means that the government is involved. So libertarians do care, as we can see from their support of California’s Prop 13. In fact, it would be even better if we could get rid of property taxes. Some of the greatest injustices happen when government and the market mix.
Comment by patr — 6/28/2005 @ 10:29 pm
“Some of the greatest injustices happen when government and the market mix.”
U.S. Business history would show that this partnership creates the greatest economy that has even been known to exist. You should retract that last statement.
Comment by anon — 6/29/2005 @ 4:49 pm
anon: Maybe it has. But I am highly suspicious of such government intevention like subsidies, unfair tariffs, creating unnatural monopolies, etc. These favor some businesses over others, which undermines the free market. The government should intervene in certain spots, like preventing and punishing fraud. But on a whole, it should take a laissez-faire approach. As opposed to a command approach, like in Communist and, to a lesser extent, socialist states. These are examples where the government has total control over the market, and we know what happens then.
Comment by patr — 6/29/2005 @ 5:41 pm
Injustice and a Great Economy are not mutually exclusive.
Comment by B.A.D. — 6/29/2005 @ 9:49 pm
it seems like the main issues are emminent domain and the ‘public interest’; surely economic development is in the public interest, and how is taking private land in this case for an ‘urban renewal’ project really that different than school-building or road-building, they all would seem to advance the public’s economic interest. is emminent domain really the biggest problem and should it be done away with?
also, how are cities supposed to redevelop if they don’t have the power to take some private land for redevelopment, as unfair as it is to some individuals?
Comment by kcdem — 6/30/2005 @ 12:51 am
Well, I’m an ideological libertarian, rather than a practical one. (i.e. a darwinist libertarian) If cities can’t redevelop because individuals are in the way…. too bad.
Comment by B.A.D. — 6/30/2005 @ 1:14 am