Every Englishman is accustomed to pride himself with more than usual complacency upon what is called the sanctity of an English home. No soldier, no policeman, no spy of the Government dare enter it... Unlike the tenant of a foreign domicile, the occupier of an Englsih house, whether it be mansion or cottage, possesses an indisputable title against every kind of aggression upon his threshold. He defies everybody below the Home Secretary [what we in India call Home Minister]; and even he can only violate the traditional security of a man's house under extreme circumstances, and with the prospect of a Parliamentary indemnity. It is with this thoroughly innate feeling of security that every Englishman feels a strong sense of the inviolability of his own house. It is this that converts the moorside cottage into a castle. The moral sanctions of an English home are, in the nineteenth century, what the moat, and the keep, and the drawbridge were in the fourteenth. In the strength of these we lie down to sleep at night, and leave our homes in the day, feeling that the whole neighbourhood would be raised, nay, the whole country, were any attempt made to violate what so many traditions, and such long custom, have rendered sacred.
"Life, Liberty and Property" - this was the mantra of classical liberalism. But the US Declaration of Independence went for a different wording:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But never forget that without the Inviolability of Property there can be no Liberty to Pursue Happiness as one's subjective mind sees it - like cannabliss.
But things are much worse in the USSA today. It is not just that cannabliss farms are being burnt and homes raided by police SWAT teams looking for "drugs" - there is a huge amount of "eminent domain" abuse. Property in the USSA is no longer secure from State predation.
This was brought home to me when I went through Bruce Benson's (edited) new book titled Property Rights: Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Re-Examined published in association with The Independent Institute (free download here). It seems the US Supreme Court took a decision in the Kelo vs City of New London case that favoured eminent domain - and this led to a political backlash, and many US States, led by Oregon and Nebraska, passed "measures" to curb the misuse of this power. A conference was later held in which many leading scholars participated - and Professor Benson concludes that the papers presented - all compiled in this book - deliver the verdict that "much more significant limitations on government takings must be imposed."
Of course, not all the scholars are of this view. I found one paper by Steven Eagle of George Mason University' School of Law quite unsatisfactory. He argues that, in the case of assembling parcels of land for urban redevelopment, transaction costs are too high, and eminent domain is therefore justified. He argues for equity participation of owners in the new development. This is what we have tried in India - unsuccessfully.
In reality, transaction costs can be both "good" as well as "bad." If eminent domain was unconstitutional - if property was inviolable - any private developer wanting to assemble a large piece of land for whatever purpose would have to hire property agents as well as lawyers, and these would be "good transaction costs." If eminent domain is allowed, then he would pay off politicians, bureaucrats and policemen - and these would be "bad transaction costs." In the latter case, there would also be a "political backlash" - with further "social costs," like social unrest, demonstrations and the like. This is what we have seen in Mayawati's UP.
What I liked best about Benson's conclusion - that "instability, inefficiency, and inequity are the inevitable result of government planning and regulation" - are his quotes from Mises: like when Mises says that all arguments in favour of government intervention assume that the State is "benevolent and omniscient." Of course, it is no such thing. Politicians and bureaucrats have their own interests. And "knowledge" is fragmented in society. Another quote, from Mises' Omnipotent Government underlined the fact that State personnel HATE and DESPISE private property rights - because it strictly limits their powers. Just as the Gold Standard limits their budgets.
Anyway, whether Proudhon or Marx like it or not - ordinary people in both the USSA as well as India are fighting for the preservation of their properties. In India, Singur and Nandigram brought the Commies down! And their replacement is totally against eminent domain!
It is therefore pleasant for me to conclude with a piece of news from our own Supreme Court that says that these "socialist" dudes have passed a ruling on eminent domain that says "government is guilty of fraud if property acquired for public purposes is given to private firms."
Looks like we might get to inviolability before the USSA does :).
Life, Liberty and Property - that is the mantra.
When your property is inviolable - when, as the editorial quoted above says, "no soldier, no policeman, no spy of the Government dare enter it," only then will the "pursuit of happiness" be free.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment