This morning on Brian Lehrer's program (formerly "On The Line") on WNYC I heard said that the Bush admin. was going to intervene legally in favor of eminent domain in a currently disputed Conn. case, but was persuaded by "property rights advocates" (who are viewed as fellow conservatives) not to do so. I make two observations from this.
The first observation is that there continues to be contention between tendencies which are frequently allied and viewed together in much of the world as "conservative": on one hand those favoring libertarian resolution of property questions, and on the other a "pro-business" faction which usually means favors to particular businesses and an attitude one might call corporatist, dirigiste, or fascist. The tendencies are viewed as allied because they both frequently wind up favoring owners of capital or accumulations of wealth -- in one case defending them from socialist predation, and in the other helping them attack and grow from relatively diffuse sources of wealth. The case in question was one of the latter, and was mentioned in the context of a program on eminent domain with guests Roger Pilon from the Cato Inst. and Norman Siegel from the NYCLU, who were presented as strange bedfellows from "right" and "left" arrayed against abuses of eminent domain. The Conn. case was one of many wherein gov't seeks to aid private economic development by seizing property from some owners for the use of certain businesses which are not, however, public utilities. The second observation is that this was an example of what Chuck Muth in the recent column posted on LIBNW meant, I think, of how it can pay for libertarians to be seen as part of the "conservative" tendency, or of a coalition of the "right". (This categoriz'n was the general view of analysts during the 20th Century, even though some "conservatives" and most self-identified libertarians didn't like being seen that way.) It does seem that the reason the Bush admin. decided not to go against the expressed interest of the "property rights" crowd was that they saw them as fellow conservatives. Had that not appeared to be the case, the Bush admin. may well have decided to press and score points against perceived opponents of the "left" or center. Considering the current ascendancy of the Republican "right" in the USA, it would seem foolish for libertarians to run away from this position of influence, and to leave the "right" and the GOP to the corporatists. Note that such positioning does not cause, for instance, the CLUs to avoid common cause with libertarians on this issue; in fact the CLUs feel a long term need to keep from being overly identified with the "left". Bounty? Rely, Iris!, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
