Here are some thoughts against Eminent Domain. Is it just or not, justice being to each their due. Now, a lot of people could say that 'to each their due' is to vague a definition of justice, but there is a specific thing I have in mind. Equal Opportunity. If everyone got equal opportunity to start off with, that is justice.
Eminent domain leads to an inevitable violation of equal opportunity, and is unjust. The reason for this is that eminent domain is always more likely to be used against people as races, ethnic groups, or minorities.
Sub Point A: Minorities do not have a lot of political power in our society, since they do not attribute enough votes overall to gain them a strong voice in the government's eyes. This means the government is more likely to use eminent domain against minorities because they are not at a great risk come election time of losing votes. Overall, this means that if you are born into a minority, and simply being born there means eminent domain is more likely to come and take away your property rights than some rich persons violates your equal opportunity to own property. In this way eminent domain is unjust because it takes away what these minorities are due in equal opportunity simply because they are minorities and don't have the political voice to stop it. This shows one way eminent domain is unjust.
Sub point B: Eminent domain is more likely to be used in blighted areas than rich or middle class areas. This is logical, since if you tore down someone's private airport to build a Wall Mart, it seems stupid. But why not tear down a run down apartment building in a blighted area to build a Wall Mart, and improve the areas economy. The reason this is unjust against minorities who live in blighted areas is simple. If you can't help but to live in a blighted area because of who you are, and because of that eminent domain is more likely to come and take away your property rights, thus violating your equal opportunity, it is unjust. Here I show in another way why eminent domain is inherently unjust to minorities in blighted areas
Sub point C: In our country, its good to ‘know people’. It is beneficial to have resources like money or power to protect yourself. People who really don’t have this type of social power are also having there equal opportunity violated. If you wake up one day to find you can’t own your property anymore because you weren’t the person to talk, pull strings, or bribe your way out something, that is violating your equal opportunity. You no longer have the same opportunity to own property just because you are someone in our society who doesn’t know the right people. This violates the justice of what you are due, which is equal opportunity.
In conclusion to those arguments, I have shown that the state using its power of eminent domain in any way is inherently unjust because it preys on certain types of people, violating their equal opportunity.
Argument 2: The state commonly says that a justification for eminent domain is just compensation. Just compensation is impossible.
Sub point A: There is no way to judge the sentimental value of property that the state is taking away from the person who owns it. The state says that it offers a good market price, but, for example, if a family is so attached to their property for whatever reason that they wouldn’t sell it for 10 billion dollars, it is not just compensation to just give them market price and then take it away. The reason this violates equal opportunity is because when we wake up in the morning, we take it for granted that the world will treat us like a human being, with feelings and emotions. If the state can simply disregard sentimentality when using eminent domain, it violates peoples equal opportunity to value things more than money could buy, or at least market price money. This shows how the reasons for eminent domain are unjust because the violate equal opportunity.
Sub point B: In the free market, the value of certain items or things fluctuates constantly, from minute to minute, or day to day. When the state uses eminent domain to take away property, it isolates a certain time in the market and gives someone that price for it. This violates that person's equal opportunity to hold out for a greater price, which is a key tool in a free market. If you wake up, and find you can’t try to get a good price on something because the state deliberately chooses a low price day for your property, that is unjust because you can no longer hold out for more money, like the rest of the sellers in a free market do. There is no way to predict the changes in market value, so the state using eminent domain by just compensation is impossible, and unjust.
Sub point C: Just compensation does not take into account surplus made by the transfer of property. Surplus happens when the seller has a lower valuation to someone with a higher valuation, and that person with the higher valuation pays more then market price. Everyone should have the opportunity to, if you are forced to sell something, find someone who you will generate surplus from. This is impossible with the states use of eminent domain, and thus unjust.
I have shown why eminent domain is inherently unjust, because it does not honor what people are do, as in equal opportunity. Over and over again it violates the equal opportunity of the politically and socially disadvantaged, those who must live in blighted areas, and how eminent domain destroys a persons rights in a free market for the pursuit of profit. A post on the pro-eminent domain side will be coming soon. Please respond.
