Eminent Domain

Steven Greenhut | 10.4.2024 7:30 AM

In their efforts to protect the downtrodden, progressives typically forget perhaps the most important defense the poor and powerless have against discrimination and government abuse: property rights. A nation that protects property rights also protects human rights.

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown," 18th century British Prime Minister William Pitt explained. "It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"

Now imagine that level of freedom, where a private property owner (or leaseholder) can defy kings, presidents, governors, and mayors. That of course explains why most leftists (and some conservatives, too) are fundamentally hostile to strict property protections. Those who want government to achieve grandiose objectives don't want to hamstring officials' ability to achieve their envisioned uplifting.

In 2004, I included that Pitt quotation in my book (

Go figure, but these agencies typically targeted the homes and businesses of the powerless. Yet the state's Democratic leadership and progressive activists were mostly hostile to the movement to rein in the "tool" of eminent domain. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its imprimatur (Kelo v. City of New London) to this troubling process, with the most progressive justices siding with the government's claim of expansive eminent domain rationales.