It is said that politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows. Politicians who seem to oppose one another on virtually every issue can occasionally agree on one particular issue. In this instance, the bedfellows aren’t two opposing politicians, but two politicians and property rights.
Democratic representatives Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Beto O’Rourke of Texas recently announced plans to introduce “The Protecting the Property Rights of Border Landowners Act.” The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney general from using eminent domain to acquire land for the purpose of constructing a border wall.
Democrats aren’t normally known for defending property rights. Indeed, they are renowned for their ability to develop schemes that violate property rights. Interestingly, no Republicans–who typically express support for property rights–have expressed support for the bill. Indeed, some Republicans, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, have supported the use of eminent domain to build the border wall.
Earlier this year, Paxton said, “It’s a public purpose providing safety to people not only along the border, but to the entire nation.” To Paxton, since “the public” will benefit, the government is justified in taking property from individuals. Gallego agrees, arguing that eminent domain should only be used when it benefits “the common good.” Paxton and Gallego just disagree on what constitutes “the common good.”
And this illustrates the problem with ideas like “the common good.” They are undefinable. Which means that anything and everything can be declared to promote “the common good.” If we want to end the atrocity that is eminent domain, we must begin by rejecting the idea of “the common good.”