Thursday, June 23, 2005
And the rich get richer...
It was a dangerous Supreme Court decision... and one that passed by the narrowest majority. As CNN reports it: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development.
This is a decision that opens the door for immense corruption. Who really stands to gain here? Will entire communities benefit from granting so much power to the local government? Or will only the wealthy and influential developers be the big winners? The answer is obvious.
On principle, individual interest must never be allowed to stand in the way of collective interest. So, on the surface, the argument that one private developer should be allowed to force the destruction of the homes and businesses of many is entirely untenable. But to give it an appearance of benevolence, it was argued that the local government knows what is best for the community and that tax revenue, job creation, and additional commerce would outweigh the interests of the small home or business owners who are being displaced (with compensation).
The truth is, however, that the compensation is rarely enough. If it were enough, then those small home and business owners would probably have sold their property to the developer. The truth is that many lives will be ruined so that one rich person can get richer. The truth is that local government is often no more likely to represent the interests of the community than national government. The truth is that in a capitalist economic structure, a democratic government is largely a front for wealthy businessmen.
This is a decision that opens the door for immense corruption. Who really stands to gain here? Will entire communities benefit from granting so much power to the local government? Or will only the wealthy and influential developers be the big winners? The answer is obvious.
On principle, individual interest must never be allowed to stand in the way of collective interest. So, on the surface, the argument that one private developer should be allowed to force the destruction of the homes and businesses of many is entirely untenable. But to give it an appearance of benevolence, it was argued that the local government knows what is best for the community and that tax revenue, job creation, and additional commerce would outweigh the interests of the small home or business owners who are being displaced (with compensation).
The truth is, however, that the compensation is rarely enough. If it were enough, then those small home and business owners would probably have sold their property to the developer. The truth is that many lives will be ruined so that one rich person can get richer. The truth is that local government is often no more likely to represent the interests of the community than national government. The truth is that in a capitalist economic structure, a democratic government is largely a front for wealthy businessmen.
