Content area
Full Text
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, the legal seizure and transfer of property from one citizen to another, has caused an outcry from citizens who feel the state is supposed to protect their property, not steal it.
This article discusses the issue in terms of the relationship between democracy and oligarchy. It is a subject well known to Aristotle and the ancient Greeks as well as the founders of the United States. However, this discussion must be debated anew with the rise of corporations, the new would-be oligarchs. Like the state, corporations are social institutions that can either serve people or cause great harm.
The author provides an overview of this development in the United States and suggests principles by which laws should be written.
INTRODUCTION
The eminent domain decision of the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2005 allows municipalities to take land from private individuals and sell it to developers who promise economic development (jobs and tax revenue) for the city. The power for such decisions rests in the hands of a few elites and not the citizens themselves. In a Newsday poll, 93.7 percent of Americans polled disagreed with the decision.
This is a clear example of oligarchy subverting democracy. The relationship between democracy and oligarchy was classically discussed by Aristotle, who wrote that "There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of constitutions, 'that of the people' and 'that of the few', democracy and oligarchy." He noted that there were both examples of moving from democracy to oligarchy and from oligarchy to democracy, either by revising an existing constitution or by adopting a new one.
Aristotle, as well as many of the American founders, believed that neither pure oligarchy nor pure democracy (majority rule) could last long and that an appropriate balance had to be struck between the people as a whole and those with the means to build and accomplish. "Nevertheless democracy is steadier and less liable to revolution than oligarchy."1 At the Consitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin even suggested that the Senate, like the Roman Senate, should represent the interests of the wealthy class, while the House represent the interests of the people. This would ensure that legislation would not be passed unless it truly served the interests...