Friday, June 24, 2005

Fall Outs from Kelo v. New London

Kieran Healy of Crooked Timber has a section of the early draft of the majority opinion on Kelo v. New London that did not make the final cut.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

...

In fact, this proposition has at all times been made use of by the champions of the state of society prevailing at any given time. First comes the claims of the government and everything that sticks to it, since it is the social organ for the maintenance of the social order; then comes the claims of the various kinds of private property, for the various kinds of private property are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases are the foundations of society, etc. One sees that such hollow phrases can be twisted and turned as desired.

Cool point to readers who can recognize the author and the name of the work which the passage was quoted. (the answer is in the comment section).

In Hubris v. Scotus, Hubris holds that he can rip off a justice’s right nut so long as he compensates him for fair market value of that nut.

2 Comments:

Blogger Minh-Duc said...

The passage that Kieran Healy quoted was not from the Supreme Court, but it might as well be. It is a quote of Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto". Sadly from the comments on his posts, few people recognize the passages. Sad!

10:40 PM  
Blogger MaxedOutMama said...

I recognized it almost immediately.

You know what? I think half our academic establishment is Communist.

6:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home