A misunderstanding of the proper role of government

Last week, the ongoing debate on Columbia’s expansion into Manhattanville was temporarily decided in court. The important aspect to note in this is that the objection at hand is not with the end goal of Columbia’s expansion, but rather the means as to how it is being completed.

The official ruling, penned by Justice James M. Catterson, reads as follows: “to benefit a private elite education institution is violative of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution, article 1, § 7 of the New York Constitution, and the ‘first principles of the social contract.’” This is vaguely reminiscent of John Locke, one of the first libertarians in Western philosophy, who theorized that the only purpose for legitimate government was one that was strictly limited to the protection of property rights, given that property is derived from a fundamental understanding of inalienable and intrinsic natural rights. Government in the Lockean sense of social contract theory comes into existence by a group of people in a given territorial region voluntarily consenting to having a third-party arbiter to address the inconveniences that may arise in a state of nature or anarchy. In this variety of conception, the state acts as a mere night watchman, whose role is emphasized as providing legal and protective services like cops or detectives for crimes that are violations of people’s natural rights, such as murder, assault, theft, or fraud. It’s no shock to see that so much of John Locke’s political philosophy has been a significant influence on the framing of the American government and modern libertarianism.

The minarchist strain of libertarianism, which is essentially invigorated in Locke’s writings, offers a clear-cut position on this current debacle. Everyone has an absolute natural right to retain and dispose of his or her property, meaning that if you so choose, you are free to relegate ownership rights to your property in exchange for money or goods or for free. Similarly, this means you have a right to retain your property free from any form of initiatory aggression that attempts to damage, hurt, or take over your property. This would constitute the basis for an act of coercion. If the mafia or gang tried to steal or take over your local store against your will, this would be an act of coercion. Eminent domain in this sense is a variety of theft, unless it is initiated by the state as opposed to a local gang. Dictatorships in Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela were involved in systematic forms of eminent domain, mass “publicization” of private property into the hands of the state. The only difference between that and our current situation is that property is being handed over to another private entity, in this case, Columbia University. Generally speaking, eminent domain is a prettified term for what should appropriately be called what it is—expropriation and redistribution.

What’s interesting is that in spite of Locke’s influence on the American Revolution, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, and our current form of civil government, his ideas on expropriation of private property are more or less absent when it comes to the composition of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution and most local government constitutions permit eminent domain, as is being done in this very case with the Manhattanville dispute. Locke wrote in the “Second Treatise of Government,” “The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government...” and this continues to hold today. In this sense, libertarianism should be seen not as a new ethical philosophy—on the contrary, it is merely the continuation of ideas that have already been long-established. We learn about Locke at the end of the first semester of Columbia College’s trademark course, Contemporary Civilization. Were Locke alive, he would support the libertarian position that is vehemently against all forms of “eminent domain,” regardless of the justification for it.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore. He is the vice president of Columbia University Libertarians.