Litigating for Liberty

The Institute for Justice's Chip Mellor on campaign-finance reform, eminent-domain abuse, and licensing laws gone wild

Nick Gillespie from the March 2008 issue

(Page 7 of 8)

Mellor: Yeah. The development’s not going to happen. It’s utterly at the end. It’s not a viable effort at all.

Susette’s house, though, is going to remain standing. They moved it from where it was located to another spot in town. It will stand as a symbol for property rights for the future.

reason: After Kelo you kept litigating this issue.

Mellor: We announced a national campaign to take this to the states, because the one ray of hope in the majority opinion was that the states could do more to protect property rights if they chose. So it was our duty, our opportunity, to go to the states and get greater protection.

reason: Can you talk briefly about how that played out in Ohio?

Mellor: Sure. We had a situation outside of Cincinnati where a neighborhood was being condemned to expand a shopping center. Some wonderful clients there had homes, or in one case a business, that they cherished. We were up against an enormously powerful developer and the city, who were determined to take this property

The law in Ohio was not very good. They’re allowed the condemnation of property if it was declared blighted, and to be declared blighted there was a list of subjective standards that could fit just about any neighborhood, such as diversity of ownership or cul-de-sacs. This neighborhood had, in fact, been declared blighted under those highly subjective standards.

We argued the case in the year after Kelo, and one thing that was evident during the argument was that the court was very, very sensitive to the outrage that was evident around this issue throughout the country. In the days after the Kelo decision, poll after poll after poll was showing astonishing opposition to that decision—70, 80, 90 percent against the government and in favor of property owners.

We won a unanimous decision at the Ohio Supreme Court level. This is the kind of decision lawyers live an entire career for and rarely get. Not only was it unanimous, not only was it in our favor, but this decision quoted Richard Epstein, Bernie Siegan, John Locke, spoke of natural rights—I mean, all of these wonderfully important authors and concepts woven into an unabashed defense of property rights and striking down, among other things, these utterly subjective notions of blight, recognizing them for the sham that they are.

reason: This is an example of where you lose in the U.S. Supreme Court but you generate a huge backlash.

Mellor: Without the Kelo decision, business would have continued as usual. Business as usual meant a complete drift in the direction of greater government authority with eminent domain, less protection for private property rights. Today that’s profoundly different. Forty-two states have enacted laws that change the status quo that was in existence at the time of Kelo in a way that to some degree provides more protection for private property rights. Some of those are modest and minor degrees; some of them are profoundly important degrees; some of them are kind of in the middle. But all of them are better than what existed before.

reason: What are your areas of greatest concern looking into the future?

Mellor: First, I’m worried about the fact that there’s a lot yet to be done on the areas that we’ve carved out. We’ve made measurable, notable, and I think significant progress in those areas since we started, but we’re a long way from the rule of law we need for a free society.

I think those are going to be compounded by the challenges we face in the coming years in the realm of the war on terror and the war on drugs.

reason: How so?

Comments

|3.3.08 @ 5:19PM|#

reason sucks

SIV|3.3.08 @ 5:38PM|#

There was a proliferation of these licensing laws in the Progressive Era and an explosion of them after the New Deal.

Progressives hate freedom.

|3.3.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Chip Mellor is certainly working for freedom.

Alcohol commerce is a good ol' boy fuck story in ~50 states, and some terrorities. We all know why. Because they can. It's illegal to open a 4th casino in Detroit. MGM and Mike Illitch's wife (He owns Little Ceasers, Detroit Tigers, Detroit Red Wings) are owners of two of the three casino licenses allowed in Detroit. Both are very happy with the status quo. Wherever you live you see government regs that serve no purpose other trhan protect the insiders from competition. It pisses me off no end.

And it is Incumbent Protection, not campaign finance regulation.

Robert|3.3.08 @ 6:42PM|#

But it's better than when they allowed no casinos, isn't it? Oligopoly beats zeropoly.

Robert|3.3.08 @ 11:49PM|#

Mellor: Mandatory disclosure laws are often viewed as a painless way of accommodating some degree of regulation of campaign financing such that people at least know who is backing whom. I think that oftentimes people overlook problems created through disclosure, and we ought to consider those problems and determine if those costs are worth bearing. Any time you have to disclose, you're in essence putting your vote on record. You may feel perfectly comfortable saying, "I back Ron Paul," but other folks may be in a position where coming out visibly for a candidate or an issue could compromise them in their community, in their workplace, in their church or synagogue, or some place like that, and they may be very reluctant to have their name appear not just in some obscure filing in a city hall file cabinet but on the Internet.

Bug or feature? Robert LeFevre and others have criticized the secret ballot. If we don't allow our representatives to vote in secret, why should we allow the people they represent to do so? Wouldn't it be better to know who in the grass roots to credit or blame? And what's wrong with being compromised in the community? Why shouldn't we be able to reward or penalize on the basis of the ones who are ultimately responsible in a democracy, i.e. individual voters? With the secret ballot, what recourse do you have against those who oppose you with their votes?

Mike Laursens of the World|3.4.08 @ 12:30AM|#

Err, umm, like what kind of recourse do you have in mind against those who you think voted the wrong way?

paul|3.4.08 @ 1:28AM|#

Bug or feature? Robert LeFevre and others have criticized the secret ballot. If we don't allow our representatives to vote in secret, why should we allow the people they represent to do so?

Because they represent us.

BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT US.

Sorry, I thought you might not have heard me.

As representatives of...us... we need to know HOW they're representing us. If once they're an elected representative (I like that word) they sneak around in secrecy, and tell us "Yeah, I'd like to show you my representative track record, but I can't do that" then they wouldn't be representing us, they'd be representing themselves.

That's why I can vote in secret (goddamnit) and they fucking can't. I represent me, so my vote is secret. See how that works? It's actually not that complicated.

With the secret ballot, what recourse do you have against those who oppose you with their votes?

Ok, maybe the joke's on me. You a troll? You serious with this comment?

Ok, rocks or gunshots through the front window is always effective. Maybe a molotov cocktail on the side of the house. That one will wake those pesky, non-vote-cooperating neighbors.

stuartl|3.4.08 @ 10:17AM|#

Oligopoly beats zeropoly

Bad beating worse makes bad okay?

|3.4.08 @ 11:48AM|#

SIV--

I was talking to a very smart couple about politics. The conversation moved to the inevitable corruption associated with government power. Though I had remained aloof regarding my own particular leanings, I took that opportunity to remark, as neutrally as one can when mentioning an ideology widely regarded as insane, that that insight was (often) the launching point for those who embrace libertarianism. The husband followed up immediately by adding "or liberal progressivism." Either he was talking about a progressive movement seeking to reduce government purview I had never ever heard of, or he misunderstood me, or I misunderstood him. But I think we'll agree on which was probably actually happening.

Robert|3.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#

Err, umm, like what kind of recourse do you have in mind against those who you think voted the wrong way?

Any legal kind.

"Bug or feature? Robert LeFevre and others have criticized the secret ballot. If we don't allow our representatives to vote in secret, why should we allow the people they represent to do so?"

Because they represent us.

And who do we represent? As long as our votes can affect others, aren't we responsible for effects on them?

Robert

Mike Laursens of the World|3.4.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Any legal kind.

That's a little open-ended. What recourse do you think should be legal? Should it be legal to:
* Take out an ad listing all of the people who voted for or against something?
* Fire an employee or evict a renter who didn't vote the way you wanted him to?
* Challenge the person to a duel?

Paul|3.4.08 @ 4:23PM|#

And who do we represent?

Robert, please, re-ready my original post. Nay, let me quote it for you:

That's why I can vote in secret (goddamnit) and they fucking can't. I represent me[emphasis added], so my vote is secret. See how that works? It's actually not that complicated.

Each voter represents himself, his own desires, his own ambitions, his own self-interest. Yes, even if you're a pinko-commie bed-wetting liberal who thinks that every vote he casts is a selfless act, cast only for the "common good", you're still representing yourself, and your self-interest. Period.

As long as our votes can affect others, aren't we responsible for effects on them?

I'm trying to craft an honest answer here, but I'm afraid that "responsible" may not be the correct term to use when you vote. Because "responsible" voting begins to smack of only voting when it's not in your self-interest, and we all know what lies down that path. More people (including me) have suffered deeply by "responsible voters" who kept voting for the "common good".

Sell "common good" somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Robert|3.4.08 @ 4:24PM|#

Yeah, why not?

|3.4.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Smooth move Robert. Trying to get someone to prove a negative is a sure sign you're losing the argument.

Ventifact|3.4.08 @ 4:39PM|#

Laursen --

I think those should all be legal behaviors regardless of motivation. That is, I am a fan of secret ballots and so I don't hope for a world in which a landlord knows how a tenant votes (unless the info is shared willingly). But I do think if you own a building you are under no obligation to let people reside there. Similarly, I do prefer secret balloting but think any legally obtained information should be legal to disseminate through advertising.

And assuming duels are verifiably different from murder -- that the challenged person is not under threat of bodily harm (or coercion) if he decides not to participate in the duel -- there is no reason to keep people from risking their own lives that way. (Provided they aren't, like, blasting away at each other on a crowded bus or something...)

Vent|3.4.08 @ 4:43PM|#

Bud -- he was challenging Laursen to explain why we might have a right to restrict i) speech involving public information, ii) a person's choices regarding use of private property, and iii) consenting persons' rights to engage in dangerous activities that don't involve nonconsenting persons.

Mike Laursens of the World|3.4.08 @ 4:47PM|#

I wasn't arguing for or against anything. I was just trying to draw out more from Robert on what he is getting at.

Colonel_Angus|3.4.08 @ 4:53PM|#

"That's a little open-ended. What recourse do you think should be legal? Should it be legal to:
* Take out an ad listing all of the people who voted for or against something?
* Fire an employee or evict a renter who didn't vote the way you wanted him to?
* Challenge the person to a duel?"

Agreeing with Ventifact, I can fire anyone I want, or ridicule anyone I want in the newspaper. If someone somehow makes their oppinions public, they open themselves up to all sorts of criticism, excluding things like assault, harassment, or property damage. But the secret ballot allows that choice. One can keep their oppinions secret or put them out in public.

And in the case of duels, when there is consent there is no wrong doing. If you get your ass shot in a duel, it's your own fault.

Colonel_Angus|3.4.08 @ 5:53PM|#

" With the secret ballot, what recourse do you have against those who oppose you with their votes?"

@Robert:

One can in turn vote for another candidate, or try to persuade peple to vote for that person or in favor of such proposition or whatever.

Robert|3.5.08 @ 3:22PM|#

One can in turn vote for another candidate, or try to persuade peple to vote for that person or in favor of such proposition or whatever.

But how can you reward or punish them if you don't know which way they're voting? How do you know whom to try to persuade, if you don't know who needs persuading to being with? The elected official's votes are public, but what can you do when people you don't even know, and you can't find out who they are, are voting in someone you don't want?

nfl jerseys|11.5.10 @ 11:36PM|#

kkj

Nike Dunk Low|8.11.11 @ 11:03PM|#

is good

|9.23.11 @ 1:00PM|#

You guys sure hate taxes, but you'll drive on the roads that were created by them.
Ayn Rand was a novelist......fiction.