A case for blind ideology?

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), established that certain homes could be legally seized and razed to make space for waterfront shopping, a museum, and Pfizer offices. The outcry was swift, loud, and long.

Pragmatism may best be described as "a doctrine that determines value through the test of consequences or utility." There is no question that more New London residents would benefit than those who would suffer from this decision: only 15 home owners chose to sue, whereas the entire town stood to benefit from the development plan. So why the outcry? The development plan clearly passes a test of utility.

The decision offends our blind and collective ideology that a home can only be taken for the most urgent cases of national security. Barring the highest claim of pressing national needs, we believe that the sovereignty of a family begins with residential property. I have not made the case just now. We have already all made it together.

(Tomorrow, a case for pragmatism.)