For the past couple of weeks I've watched and listened to the debate swirling around the recent Supreme Court decision on property rights, Kelo v. New London. I read the 58-page court ruling. I read briefs presented to the court. I have read and listened to commentary on the case ranging from the far left to the far right.

My honest reaction to all of this is quite contradictory. One reaction is dismay over the court's decision. The other reaction is pure "I told you so" satisfaction, although it pains me to admit that.

As to the court's decision in the case, I won't bore you with my legal analysis; the dissent of retiring Justice O'Connor does enough to lay bare the majority opinion as pure folly. The internet also has plenty of good explorations of the case and its implications, particularly the Cato Institute, which prepared an amicus brief to the court.

Suffice it to say, the ruling is atrocious. Truly horrible. As it stands now, Caribou have more property rights in this country than you or I do.

As to my guilty pleasure in this matter, I've maintained for a long time that giving the government the right to eminent domain was a bad idea. Sure, for a long time it was used reasonably, for lighthouses and forts and such, but gradually it eroded into Kelo. Now they'll take your home away for a little extra parking. If real people weren't involved, it would be downright funny.

Strange Bedfellows

Another amusing thing about this case is that it finds many prominent liberals and conservatives on the same side of a divisive issue. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was appalled by the 5-4 decision. So was ultra-left columnist Molly Ivins.

When it comes to property rights, a lot of Republican types favor allowing people to own and dispose of property as they see fit (at least in theory), so it came as no surprise that a lot of conservatives blasted the ruling. But they can also be partial to states' rights, so a few right-wingers sided with that part of the high court's logic that said the Federal Government shouldn't interfere with Connecticut law. Of course, when people talk favorably of state's rights, they usually mean that states should grant people more rights, not less.

It's liberals, however, that find themselves in a real pickle. On the one hand, you have the thing most near and dear to all liberals: government. Every true liberal is absolutely in love with the idea that a little more government will fix everything-even the problems government caused in the first place. Urban planning? Social engineering? The more the merrier. So why aren't they happy?

Because standing shoulder to shoulder with the government in this case is the sworn enemy of liberalism, big business. In a delicious twist of irony, the condemned land is being handed over to the Pfizer Corporation. To your typical, run-of-the-mill Democrat, this isn't that big of a deal. Most aren't rich enough to really hate capitalism, and they understand the importance of campaign contributions as much as Republicans.

But for the true believers on the left, for socialist nutballs like Ivins, the marriage of intrusive government and big business is like watching Luke Skywalker go over to the dark side. They don't know who to cheer for. Do you root for big government or root against big corporations? What's next…Jane Fonda eating steak?

The Big Picture

In the grand scheme of things, Kelo is just the latest shot in the battle between collectivism and individualism. The rationale behind the decision, and the rationale behind eminent domain in general is pure collectivism-the desires, rights, and property of any single individual is secondary to the wishes of the group. They had to take the homes of a few innocent bystanders for the common good.

It's too bad that this kind of thinking is fairly commonplace these days. It leads inevitably to the end of liberty and all the blessings liberty brings. Any appreciation of freedom must be firmly connected to the primacy of the individual. If we don't think that each individual life has worth, that each individual person has rights, than whatever freedom we have left won't last.

Property rights have always been the foundation of liberty. What good is freedom of speech if you can't own a newspaper? How valuable is freedom of religion if you have no land for a church? Freedom and civility become untenable without the simple right of ownership.

Those that desire to strip away individual rights for the common good are chasing after fool's gold. Nothing is more essential to the "common good" than the security of our fundamental freedoms. The future health of our economy doesn't depend on the freedom of government to plan for us. It rests on individual property rights, which give each man, great and small, the ability to chart a course for their own life and to better satisfy the wants and needs of those around him.

The world today serves as a stark reminder of which course we should follow. Those societies that have sacrificed individualism for collectivism are stagnant and brutal. Countries like America, with a history of individualism, prospered in every way imaginable.

Scott Kauzlarich is a professor of Social Science at Ellsworth Community College in Iowa Falls, IA. He can be contacted at Scott.Kauzlarich@iavalley.edu.

Order Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive filosofical treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at http://www.lulu.com/content/140855. You only pay $2.50 for 81 electronic pages of in-depth reasoning. Free previews, descriptions, and information on A Rational Cosmology can be found at http://www.oocities.org/rational_argumentator/rc.html.