Eminent Domain, part II: Killing the goose the lays the golden egg

As was noted in last week's article, there is a difference between the perception of conservatives and the reality. Conservatives are sometimes perceived to be pro-corporation, but they are actually supportive of certain economic policies that usually help corporations in general, but sometimes are devastating to particular corporations. These economic policies are generally summed up as "free market capitalism" or "laissez-faire economics." The idea is that government should have no role in the economy except to halt theft and fraud, and only with a relatively narrow definition of those - in many instances requiring consumers themselves to police dishonest salesmen, a situation known as the "buyer beware" stance on fraud. This cuts both ways with corporations, though: if a corporation (such as a bank or an airline) is failing, a true conservative would let it fail (as opposed to using government to help it), because corporate failure is a natural, legitimate, and necessary process of the market economy.

Someone who might think he's a conservative - but really isn't - might believe that using eminent domain laws to seize private property from individuals and give it to corporations is a good thing, because of not just the increase in tax revenue, but the jobs it would create and whatnot. But if conservative economic policy were a religion, private property rights would be the High Sacrament. Unequivocally the most important part of laissez-faire economics is the right to own property and do what you wish with what you own. And this is not just an abstract principle with no practical implications. It is nearly impossible to overstate the economic devastation wrought by the denial of private property rights, or even in some cases the threat of denial of those rights. No one who has a choice will invest in an area where they think the government might take away everything that they've invested in and worked for. If somehow forced to, a company or entrepeneur will likely fail because of the lack of other investors and inevitable lack of infrastructure resulting from the flight of those companies and individuals necessary to build and maintain infrastructure. From history come numerous examples of this process, including the modern-day totalitarian regimes in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the former Soviet Union, and Southeast Asia.

The point is, private property rights are like the goose that laid the golden eggs in that famous fable. A government that diminishes the rights of private citizens to their own property, be it local, state, or national, anywhere in the world, is akin to the farmer (or farmer's wife) who, in greed, killed a goose that laid golden eggs, only to find nothing of value inside. As a part of a free market system, property rights produce the golden eggs of an abundant economy where everyone has a chance to prosper, innovation is encouraged, and everyone's quality of life gradually (or rapidly) increases over time. Greedy government officials sometimes want to just grab this wealth are trampling on private property rights, and will soon find their actions have frightened off potential entrepeneurs investors who will go to another city, state, or even another country if necessary, where there is more freedom to keep what belongs to you. Without entrepeneurs or investors, the economy will slow, backslide, or fail completely, depending on the extent of the property rights violations.

SRS

Note: this blog entry used to be found at Backlog Bob's Blog. It no longer appears there.