THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC DOMAIN
Where does government get the right to take your property?
© 2004 by G. Edward Griffin -- Created 2004 October 31

Many believe that it is acceptable to compel us to sell our property to the state if it is useful for some public benefit, such as roads, parks, urban renewal, or preservation of the environment. This is a variant of the collectivist dogma that individuals must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number.

The doctrine of public domain is inconsistent with The Creed of Freedom on several counts. (1) It sacrifices the property rights of the individual to the mythical higher right of the group and (2) it is beyond the proper role of government, which is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. Under the doctrine of public domain, government is converted from the protector to the predator.

Of all the values in society and all the desirable goals, life, liberty, and property must be ranked above convenience and money. If that cantankerous old codger who owns a house in the path of a proposed highway decides not to sell, his decision must stand supreme, even if his stubbornness inconveniences everyone. None of us as individuals have the right to compel him to sell his home, so we can’t delegate that right to our government. That means the state has no legitimate power to confiscate private property except for the defense of the lives, liberty, or property of others. If the codger’s land is essential for the defense of the nation, then he may be compelled to sell at a reasonable price, but this is not justified by the desire for a straight road. By defending his rights, we are defending ours as well. Inconvenience is a small price to pay for freedom

Back