Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

could afford to pay these costs since they are already
paying them. One hundred and twenty-eight dollars is
clearly the same amount whether it is collected by the
state through taxes or by private road companies
through tolls and other fees."(2)
b. Eminent Domain.
The issue of eminent domain presents both a more
d 1 f f i cuI ta ndam 0 rei n t eres ting que s t ion • Wh i lethe
Rothbardian or natural rights variant of individualist
anarchism must, of course, repudiate the entire concept
of eminent domain as nothing more than legalized theft,
the ut iIi tar ian, or Friedmanite, variant finds itself
inn 0 s u c h m0 r a 1st r a i g h t - j a c ke t • For F r i e drna n, a s for
Tucker in the nineteenth century, private property is
def ined not as a moral or natural right but as a social
expedient, a valuable one to be sure, but a social exped
i en t none theless. As such, the problem of the lone
holdout would not appear to be an insurmountable one.
Since property is a social expedient there is nothing
to prevent the courts in the anarchist society -- whose
operation will be ,discussed in detail in the next chapter
-- from incorporating into their Law Code a provision
permitting, in extreme cases, such occasional violations
of property rights as eminent domain. Thus, if
a sin g I e hoi do u t we r e pr even ting the con s t r uc t i on 0 f a
much needed road or bui Iding there would be nothing
from the utilitarian point of view to prevent the
courts from seIzing the property, ascertaining its
"fair ll market value, and then awarding it to the construction
company on the stipulation that the company
pay the dispossessed owner for it.
All of this would be anathema for the libertarian
moralist, for whom any such coerced exchange, even one
grant ing the owner the full market value of his propert
y, is i mmo r a I. As Wo lIs t e i n pu t sit:
For an economic transaction to be properly
regarded as trade rather than theft, it is
necessary that the parties involved (in this
case the government and the property owner)
mutually consent to all of the terms of the
transaction, including price. The property
own e r has the right to set any pr ice he
wishes for the purchase of his property, or
tor e f use t 0 s ell i t for any price wh a t s 0ever.
It makes no difference what prlee
eve r y 0 the rho use in the b 10 c k wa s sol d for.
275