You are here

FAU Collections » FAU Research Repository » FAU Theses and Dissertations

Eminent domain as enclosure movement: the privatization of law under neoliberalism

Download pdf | Full Screen View

Date Issued:
2015
Summary:
Law is a means to an end. The state has always claimed it uses law as a tool to promote social order and progress (the Brazilian National Flag is an example). The use of law to force social change to facilitate capital accumulation for elites in society flies in the face of what the takings clause is supposed to stand for. This research examines the connection between economic development and public good. It focuses on takings because takings lie at the intersection between economics, politics, and social relations. Takings are justified by necessity and public good, but the claim isn’t genuine. Takings condone displacement and cause harm. State-authorized condemnation juxtaposes civic duty with social obligation, ownership with license and privilege. The thesis developed here is the state is pushing the law of takings toward the satisfaction of private interests. To that end the public use concept was expanded. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) holds economic development is a public use and in making that fallacious claim the case has ruptured takings law. Public use shouldn’t be about private gain. Property should be creative and is when it facilitates productivity, but it’s destructive if it erodes personal autonomy. The state claims it promotes social good when it reorders uses, but the claim is false. Instead the state achieves an air of legitimacy, offering a sound rationale for acts of displacement and uses law to support the claim it promotes public good. If an individual doesn’t want to part with her property she shouldn’t be forced to do so. Taking is use of state power to accomplish ends that can’t otherwise be achieved. Taking is a lawful means to displace to benefit private interests. The proof of this is in the pudding of the transformation of law between Berman v. Parker (1954) and Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Berman (1954) required blight. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) eliminated that requirement. This thesis explains how law and state are captured by private interests.
Title: Eminent domain as enclosure movement: the privatization of law under neoliberalism.
356 views
91 downloads
Name(s): Kleeger, Jeffery, author
Araghi, Farshad A., Thesis advisor
Florida Atlantic University, Degree grantor
Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters
Department of Sociology
Type of Resource: text
Genre: Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation
Date Created: 2015
Date Issued: 2015
Publisher: Florida Atlantic University
Place of Publication: Boca Raton, Fla.
Physical Form: application/pdf
Extent: 210 p.
Language(s): English
Summary: Law is a means to an end. The state has always claimed it uses law as a tool to promote social order and progress (the Brazilian National Flag is an example). The use of law to force social change to facilitate capital accumulation for elites in society flies in the face of what the takings clause is supposed to stand for. This research examines the connection between economic development and public good. It focuses on takings because takings lie at the intersection between economics, politics, and social relations. Takings are justified by necessity and public good, but the claim isn’t genuine. Takings condone displacement and cause harm. State-authorized condemnation juxtaposes civic duty with social obligation, ownership with license and privilege. The thesis developed here is the state is pushing the law of takings toward the satisfaction of private interests. To that end the public use concept was expanded. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) holds economic development is a public use and in making that fallacious claim the case has ruptured takings law. Public use shouldn’t be about private gain. Property should be creative and is when it facilitates productivity, but it’s destructive if it erodes personal autonomy. The state claims it promotes social good when it reorders uses, but the claim is false. Instead the state achieves an air of legitimacy, offering a sound rationale for acts of displacement and uses law to support the claim it promotes public good. If an individual doesn’t want to part with her property she shouldn’t be forced to do so. Taking is use of state power to accomplish ends that can’t otherwise be achieved. Taking is a lawful means to displace to benefit private interests. The proof of this is in the pudding of the transformation of law between Berman v. Parker (1954) and Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Berman (1954) required blight. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) eliminated that requirement. This thesis explains how law and state are captured by private interests.
Identifier: FA00004386 (IID)
Degree granted: Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2015.
Collection: FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection
Note(s): Includes bibliography.
Subject(s): Common good
Eminent domain -- Law and legislation -- United States
Land use -- Economic aspects -- United States
Neoliberalism
Privatization -- United States
Property -- Social aspects
Right of property -- United States
Held by: Florida Atlantic University Libraries
Sublocation: Digital Library
Links: http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004386
Persistent Link to This Record: http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004386
Use and Reproduction: Copyright © is held by the author, with permission granted to Florida Atlantic University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Use and Reproduction: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Host Institution: FAU
Is Part of Series: Florida Atlantic University Digital Library Collections.