In a bold maneuver designed to prove that it is, in fact, possible for me to be even further behind than the Live 8 entry would imply, I’d now like to discuss Kelo vs. New London with you.

The ruling on eminent domain, as issued by Justice John Paul Stevens, states that “promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government” [CNN]. Your first reaction might be to say that that’s an extremely dumb opinion, and you’d be right (but you’re far too moderate!). The reasons are manifold.

1) “Promoting economic development” is a very loose objective that can be argued any number of ways. There’s no logical boundary to this power, which means that its practice will have no logical limitations.

2) As usual, the US government has determined that it can rely on its unimpeachable prescience when it comes to predicting economic results. Not only will it forecast what will be economically favorable, but it’s so confident in its vision that it’s willing to bet your land on it.

3) The gov’t has provided another exciting way to foster corruption in the political process. Now that nearly any case for land-grabbing can be successfully argued (per #1), particularly with the well-paid lawyers that befit government and corporations, all that stands between a company and its wishes may be some hayseed city council members. Compared to buying expensive land elsewhere, or being in a less prime location, it’s a no-brainer. Wow, sounds like South America — and I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, I say “YES!!!”

4) Justice Stevens also states: “The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue.” Hmm. On the one hand we’re supposed to be boosting economic development. On the other, we’re boosting tax revenues. If anyone can spot a contradiction there, please let me know. I think the logic is flawless. But I guess that’s why he’s a judge, and I’m not.

5) The government promoting economic development is a little too reminiscent of the USSR for me. The concept of the government trumping individual rights in the name of the greater good (I’m sorry, the “general welfare” — now it’s okay) smacks of socialism, but as Samizdata points out, it’s more fascist than socialist (”carefully formulated plan” bit notwithstanding).

As an example of unintended uses, let’s consider commercial, rather than residential, private property. I could argue that Target should be able to take over the K-Mart near my house, since Target ALWAYS does better than K-Mart, because they’re a better company. They make more money, which equates to a more stable situation, more jobs, and more customers getting what they want.

Let’s also run non-profit orgs out of town wherever there’s a company that would like their property; tax revenues will go through the roof. Suppose someone tried to do that last bit to a favorite lefty nonprofit (like Planned Parenthood), the nonprofit sued, and the case made it to the Supreme Court. I wonder what exceptions would miraculously be invented by John Paul Stevens, what eloquent rhetoric would flow from his pen about the uses for which eminent domain was never meant. Because, remember: that’s the great part about living in a world of evolving standards.