Imagine for a moment, that a neighbor’s young daughter desperately needs surgery to save her life, but her family can’t afford the medical expenses. If her father broke into homes in the neighborhood and stole money to pay for the surgery, we would recognize his actions as theft. His tragic circumstances do not change the fact that he deprived others of their values without the owner’s consent. To attempt to justify the father’s actions is to evade this fact.
Defenders of eminent domain engage in the same type of evasion. They attempt to justify the allegedly noble reasons for using eminent domain, and ignore the fact that property is being taken from its owner without his consent. Theft is theft, no matter the reason. And eminent domain is used to take property without the owner’s consent.
That the victim of eminent domain receives “just compensation” is irrelevant. (And “just compensation” isn’t really just.) The relevant issue is the owner’s consent or lack thereof. Under eminent domain, the owner does not voluntarily agree to sell his property. He is forced to sell, regardless of his own judgment and desires. His rational thought is rendered impotent.
The ends to not justify the means. Noble ends cannot be achieved through ignoble means. To defend eminent domain is to claim that theft is justified if the cause is allegedly noble enough.