|
 |
 |
|
A Communitarian Letter #4
In this Letter: Kelo vs. New London, States Rights to the Rescue The Price of Katrina Universalism Versus Relativism Support from Colleagues Do-Not-Call Lists A Communitarian Calendar The Great ID Debate Continues Kelo vs. New London, States Rights to the Rescue States are moving to limit the damage done to justice by Kelo v. New London. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, vastly expanded the concept of eminent domain. It ruled in favor of what correctly has been called a "Reverse Robin Hood." The court ruling has benefited a group of businesses and local government interests in the New London, Conn., area including the New London Development Corp., drug giant Pfizer Inc. and private real estate developers. They were allowed to force local residents in Fort Trumbull, a modest but unblighted community, to sell their houses and land. On these properties Pfizer will build a $300 million research facility, and the surrounding parcels of land will be developed into upscale residences along with a marina, hotel and conference center. In the past, acts based on the Fifth Amendment were allowed if there was a strong public interest (e.g., there was no way to build a railroad unless a private property owner made way) or significant blight reduction. For example, the little town of North Bonneville, Wash., about 35 miles from Portland, Ore., was razed and rebuilt a mile west in the 1970s when a second powerhouse was added to Bonneville Dam. However, allowing tax revenue and job growth to supersede private property rights vastly extends the range of homes and land to which eminent domain can be applied. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas quipped, "[T]hough citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "[N]othing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton." "If there's real blight, dilapidated houses, juvenile delinquency, health problems, hazardous waste then [a city] can do it," said Hugh Spitzer, a constitutional law professor at the University of Washington. But "it can't just do it because they think it would be neater or better for the economy." Recent state actions
The good news? The high court made it clear that states may impose more restrictive laws governing condemnations. Indeed states are moving to tighten their laws to prevent revenue-driven abuses of eminent domain. An Encinitas, Calif., councilman proposes that any transfer of private property to other private owners must pass a two-thirds vote in a regular election. Connecticut legislators are pushing a bill to bar the use of eminent domain for economic development. The Washington state legislature voted, 231-189, to deny funds from the U.S. departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development to local or state governments using eminent domain to force the sale of property for a for-profit enterprise. As a scholar who dedicated the last 15 years to communitarian public philosophy, I have frequently argued that individual rights have been unduly expanded, often at the cost of the common good. I joined Harvard law professor Mary Glendon to point critically at the explosive growth of entitlements and the trivialization of rights. For example, some feminists claimed that they had a right to use the men's room even if there was no line at the women's room. And an employee of Macy's claimed that he has a right to play Santa Claus. I could not find such rights in the Constitution, or for that matter, any other place. In addition, I devoted a whole book to the limits of privacy, and I am among those who hold that Sept. 11, 2001, changed what constitutes a "reasonable" search. However, when we move to reset the balance between individual rights and the common good, we inevitably step on the slippery slope that we face whenever we reset legal doctrines, religious Do’s and Don'ts and moral taboos. We hence need to be careful that we not open the floodgates to gross violations of individual rights-that we not end up on our backside on the lowest end of the slope. Some civil libertarians are so concerned about this danger that they would rather not set foot on the slope at all, and prefer to remain frozen in whatever position they find themselves. However, adjustments are often needed. The secret is to set clear markers for the new place on the slope beyond which we will not slide, a new definition of what is reasonable, a specific new point of balance between rights and the common good. Viewed in this way, the main problem with the new court decision is that it did open the floodgates, yet did not set a new marker. If one can force people to sell their homes and land for tax revenue and job enhancement, no private property is secure. This, it goes without saying, is not the American way. One must hope that the Supreme Court will "clarify" its position in the near future, and that meanwhile the states will come to the rescue. They may allow for more room for acts based on the Fifth Amendment but need to find a much narrower way to define which forfeitures have now become acceptable. A version of this item appeared in The National Law Journal Online on September 19, 2005. The Price of Katrina
An excerpt from a fine article on what it will take to repair the damage to the community:
“The most terrible price of Katrina—everyone can see this—was not the destruction of lives and property, terrible though this was. The worst of it was the damage done to the ties that bind Americans together. It is very much too late for our senior federal officials, from the president on down, to reknit these ties. It is just too late for the public-relations exercises that pass for leadership these days… The real work of healing will be done by citizens much lower down the chain of command: the schoolteachers and superintendents of public school systems around the country who are taking in children and putting them through the healing routines of the school day; the morticians who do what they can to respect the dead; the National Guardsmen who protect the vacant city; the officials and business people who plan its rebirth… Millions of acts of common decency and bureaucratic courage will be necessary before all Americans, and not just the storm victims, feel that they live, once again, in a political community and not in a savage and lawless swamp.” (Michael Ignatieff, “The Broken Contract” New York Times Magazine 9/25/2005 p. 15).
Universalism Versus Relativism
Simon Blackburn came to Aspen Institute to talk about his new book Truth: A Guide. The sharp host, Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson, asked him where he stood on relativism. Simon wiggled out of the question but suggested repeated that utility determined truth. He talked about both empirical and moral truths, in effect suggesting that moral truth was not that different from empirical one. He was asked if it would be morally true to shoot first offenders because holding them in jail is very costly to society and they often are not rehabilitated—hence, surely it would add to the great benefit of the greatest number to kill them? He stated that all those who differed with him simply feel lost with out the certainty of absolute values and that they are dogmatic and treat anybody as blasphemous when their truth is questioned. In short, you were either a relativist or a Taliban. For a much more defensible position, see the forthcoming volume edited by Don Browning titled Universalism versus Relativism: Making Moral Judgments in a Changing, Pluralistic, and Threatening World, published by Rowman & Littlefield. The Little Platoons Some letters speak for themselves: Dear Amy, Having had cancer about 20 years ago, I wanted to share my experience with kindness. Often I spent long, miserable days alone at home during all my surgeries and radiation treatments. Besides the love and support from family and friends, what gave me a morale boost was that every day, two or more people from where I worked would bring lunch and eat with me. They had a calendar at work where my coworkers signed up. There was never a day that at least one didn’t show up. The food and companionship were the best therapy and helped motivate me to recover and get back to work with all these great people. I’m still grateful. (Source: “Ask Amy” The Washington Post, 9/11/05 p.D2 Do Not Call… Except at Dinnertime The popular two-year-old Do Not Call lists that are supposed to ban telemarketers from interrupting your dinner are simply not working. Subscribers are still getting over 50% of calls that should be blocked, and despite receiving over one million complaints, the FTC has filed only fourteen lawsuits (and levied a scant four fines). A Wall Street Journal article (Christopher Conkey, “Do-Not-Call Lists Under Fire,” 9/28/2005 p. D1) shows that now states’ rights issues are getting into the mix. Twenty-five states have their own Do Not Call lists, which they say are tougher on telemarketers than the national list. Meanwhile, are we to rely on the answering machine in order to have a peaceful dinner? Communitarian Calendar October 19-21 CLAD’s International X Conference: Reformation of the State and Public Administration [[INSERT LINK http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.clad.org.ve/congres.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCLAd%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-25,GGLG:en]] Santiago, Chile 3:30-5:00 PM, October 20 “What Makes a Good Society?” October 22 Association for Political Theory Conference 2005 [[INSERT LINK http://organizations.oneonta.edu/apt/]] October 22-23 Washington University, St. Louis, MO 5:15-6:30 PM Discussion led by Dennis McEnnerney; discussants James Bohmna (St. Louis University) and Russell Arben Fox (Western Illinois University) October 27 7:00 PM University of Denver Bridges Lecture Series Denver, CO October 28 Institute on Globalization and Security (IGLOS) APSA ISA Annual Conference 12:00 (Lunch session) Loews Denver Hotel 4150 East Mississippi Avenue From Empire to Community Discussants: James Wirtz (Naval Postgraduate School) and Paul Viotti (University of Denver)
November 9 Science Po Event: From Empire to Community [[INSERT LINK http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/empire.html]] 6:00-7:30 PM Centre Americain de Sciences Po 117 Bd St Germain 75006 Paris, France
November 10-12 11th Presidential Conference: William Jefferson Clinton, The “New Democrat” from Hope [[INSERT LINK http://www.hofstra.edu/CampusL/Culture/Culture_Clinton.cfm]] Hofstra University Sondra & David S. Mack Student Center, NORTH CAMPUS 10:45 AM – 12:45 PM , Friday November 11 “Opportunity, Responsibility, Community”: Was Clinton a Communitarian? Presented by Derek Mitchell of The Communitarian Network
Rights vs. Security: A Dialogue Stay tuned for A Communitarian Letter #5, where will continue our dialogue on freedom and national security with University of Chicago law professor Mark Heyrman. More about ID
Kenneth Woodward recently wrote an excellent New York Times op-ed about the conflict over Intelligent Design. He says, as I have said many times before, that science and religion are not incompatible—that in fact, both are essential because Darwinism alone cannot answer some of the most pressing questions humanity has to ask. “Most Americans,” Woodward writes, “… do not think of themselves as gene survival machines or as random products of an impersonal process that whispers, in effect ‘I am all that is.””
Many of you also had comments as we continue the dialogue about Intelligent Design, evolution and their respective roles in the classroom: William Z. Lidicker, Jr., Professor of Integrative Biology at University of California, Berkeley writes:
I will address only two points raised by Etzioni. The first is his wish that "progressives" be more clear about what it is they object to with ID. Clearly the focus is on efforts to inject ID concepts into the teaching of science. I am not aware of instances in which ID advocates have argued that ID should be discussed in philosophy or religion courses. They always want the subject included in science curricula, so that is why it is so The second issue concerns science and moral codes. Dr. Etzioni claims that I have no understanding of moral values. He is correct that I do not fully comprehend what is meant by "normative" questions or issues. As far as I know, this is not a phrase used by scientists, and the dictionary is no help. I do, however, understand "morals" and "values." From my perspective, morals and values are clearly within the realm of scientific investigation. They are real-world phenomena that can be studied objectively. Scientists are interested in their origins, their histories, their natures, and especially their function in societies. To claim as some do that "science has nothing to say" about these interesting phenomena demonstrates not only a limited understanding of science, but effectively and arbitrarily ends discussion of the matter. Communitarians should be encouraging mutual understanding, not closing doors to meaningful dialogue. As Einstein said, "religion without science is blind." Etzioni Responds: The first point is a bit coy. ID advocates wish it to be included in science curricula, next to evolution. Progressives say they mind ID being taught as science. If this is true, would one not expect them to suggest where is should be taught? Do they really not mind if it taught in other classes? And if so, even if to show that they are fair, why not suggest which HIGH SCHOOL classes may include ID? Regarding values, there is no question that they can be studied using scientific methods. However, can science tell us what we should treat as right versus wrong? What are obligations are to our children? Our elders? The poor? Why we are born to die? These are normative questions that are outside of science, and suggestions for answers to them come from other disciplines. Right? Professor of Sociology Dr. Michal Bodemann of the University of Toronto writes: It is rather ethnocentric, singling out the US civil society for its volunteering spirit during the hurricane. Regardless of their social structures, there are many other societies where the same willingness to volunteer to help others is going on. During the great floods of the Elbe river three years ago, the willingness to help out financially and otherwise was phenomenal, and I am sure the same could be said other disasters in other times and places. Etzioni Responds: I hope we hear more from professors and others about any non-American society that did as much for its suffering people as Americans did and do for the victims of Katrina. Tom Roush of Boise, Idaho writes: You mislead when you write, "these weapons have been used to shoot at helicopters" when you have no proof whatsoever that weapons carried by people who have obtained concealed-carry permits were people shooting at helicopters. People who apply for concealed weapons permits are the most law-abiding people in our society. Ask the ordinary working sheriff’s deputies who issue the permits. The applicants aren't criminals, they can't have a criminal record, they are not the looters, and they don't engage in such disgraceful behavior. Neither you nor I know for certain who shot at the police helicopters, but most certainly they were idiots, drunk, high on meth, or criminals engaging in some kind of criminality, and their guns were most likely--most likely--obtained or owned illegally, in violation of any number of laws. Shooting at police helicopters is, after all, a crime, and such people have no problem committing such crimes. They are also the last people who would take the time, make the effort, and pay the money to apply for a concealed weapons permit. Use your head, please. And, you write, the authorities "had to . . .collect arms . . ." You don't know that they had to. Not everything the police did was something they had to do. The New Orleans police department is one of the most incompetent and corrupt police organizations in the country, and everybody in law enforcement knows it. It is not at all surprising that among the first things they would do, (if, in fact, they did), when they should have been doing so many other things, was confiscate guns from ordinary citizens. I admit--as you should--that the report about this is incomplete, and perhaps the report of police confiscating guns amounted to nothing more than an appropriate taking of a few guns away from a few miscreants or juveniles. Or, maybe it was an egregious and inappropriate action; I don't know, but I suggest we don't know the facts about what actually happened. Your stance on this issue is identical to that of those European elites who are so out of touch with their own society. I've always found it interesting that around the world, the ordinary citizen asks the governing authorities to protect them from violent crime, but the authorities seem to be able to do that less and less, even as more laws are passed regulating weapons. It's quite obvious that police generally only show up after the crime, after the victim has already been victimized--robbed, raped, beaten. Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that a victim would, both in theory and in reality, even the odds at least a bit if they were armed and knew how to use their weapon. I always find it odd how gun-phobia is so prevalent among the elites around the world, and, apparently, present in yourself. It's a shame that you appear to have lost all common sense when it comes to this subject. And Rick Lempert of National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia has some more general feedback: Am I the only one who is upset that a letter labeled "Communitarian Letter" that appears a newsletter for a broad movement is basically a letter reflecting your personal musings and dialogues of readers with you. Now, you are an interesting man with interesting ideas; if the letter were labeled Etzioni blog I might well read it and I would have no problems with it. But I fear that its current label carries with it the unsettling implication that the communitarian movement is really a cult of personality, and in particular your personality. Of course, it is not that and I am sure you do not want it seen this way. So my suggestion is make this either a true Communitarian newsletter with a separate editor to which all interested people can submit statements (and a regular column by you would not be out of place) or change the name to "Etzioni letter" to avoid confusion with a larger movement. I also think your critics have the better of it on the ID issue, but more on this later. Etzioni Responds: We call it A Communitarian Letter-- I believe I qualify. We welcome your thoughts and feedback to comnet@gwu.edu.
Sincerely, Amitai Etzioni PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMUNITARIAN NETWORK RETAINS THE RIGHTS TO PUBLISH ALL SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK To read over several decades of Communitarian thinking, please visit our NEW e-storage facility D-Space .
|
|
The Communitarian Network |