What is a Conservative? Part III

I got as far as the right to life last time.

The right to liberty is tied very closely to the innate privilege of life. From a purely material standpoint, how meaningful is life without liberty or with freedom severely restricted? The liberty to succeed (or fail) at one's chosen endeavor in life is what has made the American experiment the dynamic engine that it is today. The freedom to choose where and how we worship brings renewed focus to the spiritual pursuits of millions across not just our land, but to many around the world. The choice of where we will set our roots down and raise our families provides a new reason to get up and go to work for others. Different people will prioritize these and other freedoms in varying order, but they are part and parcel of the liberty we cherish as conservatives. Curtail one of them to any extent and life is rendered that much more of a drudgery, as is proved in many of the more impoverished regions of the world where some of these choices (in certain countries, alarmingly enough, ALL of them) are simply unavailable.

Belief in personal property rights is endemic to the conservative make-up, and is also one of the first freedoms to be attacked when a society moves in the direction of socialism. Sadly, our own Supreme Court has seen fit to chip away at this right in recent years with such decisions as Kelo v. New London, which offered a massive victory for eminent domain claims, as opposed to protecting the small home and land owners. This trend must be reversed if personal property rights are to carry the day.

It is not coincidental that in the early days of our republic, only property owners were allowed to vote. Those who own land have a very viable stake in the local economy, and the founding fathers understood that such individuals would vote with those interests in mind. I am not arguing that we should return to those days, but this is not just an elitist principle, as some may characterize it. At the heart of it all was an understanding of the value of property and the satisfaction that the care of it brings to the owner. Achieving a share of the property "pie" through sweat and hard labor (however that is defined, as the generations pass) brings a maturity that enables decision making in the best interests of the country. Once again, we are compelled to realize the wisdom of Washington, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson, are we not?

Personal property rights must be respected even when high dollar amounts are at stake, and when developers argue that they could turn a huge profit by arguing for eminent domain on a piece of property in front of a judge who would view the matter favorably. Displacing homeowners with a gentrification argument while ostensibly reimbursing fair market value is immoral and unethical, even if it is declared to be legal by the controlling legal authority (to plagiarize Al Gore). Conservatives must champion this cause because it is right and it is moral, but it doesn't hurt at all that doing so will give the lie to the demagogery that Republicans are the ones for the rich and the liberal Democrats are supporters of the "little guy."