Initially, every parasitical official seeking to renew or secure a grip on the public teat was demanding a halt to what are mostly perfectly legitimate foreclosures on delinquent homeowners. Now cities across the US are considering using eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages. One dreadful cur, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, claims that the effort will “boost a recovery of the housing market.”
Fox Business’ Melissa Francis hammered Moreno for his scheming.
“Chicago is threatening to undermine whole system,” blasted Ms. Francis. “If you seize these mortgages from the banks and you just rip them up, why would a bank ever lend money again?” Good for her. But why not use the words “contract” and “property rights”? Why use “system,” so vague and meaningless?
Public discourse never rises above the utilitarian: what works, what doesn’t. Rights be damned. Anything to get away from making a principled distinction between what is mine and what is thine. In a word, property rights.
It is almost always true that a necessary condition for a foreclosure is for the homeowner to have failed to make his mortgage payments. Some even “argue” for all-out sweetness and love for the foreclosed upon. They say that because the banks are embroiled in the fractional reserve system, they should suffer this fate.
That’s like saying that because a legal system is corrupt, murderers should go free; or because an owner who sells a parcel of land partakes in the property tax theft, the buyer should not have to pay him. Or because businesses often act like exuberant idiots during a phase of the business cycle—some as offenders; others as victims—their customers need not pay them. And on and on.