The supreme court just confirmed that eminent domain means “the power to take your property for pertty much any reason we please”. You don’t own your homes any more, folks; you’re simply squatters until Wal-Mart saunters up to your local governmant and says “I’ll take that one, please”.
There are some who would see this as a problem with big corporations, but it’s not. It’s a problem of governmant assuming more and more power and then being a whore for the aforementioned corporations.
If I’m ever killed in a bloody Ruby Ridge style standoff, it’ll as like as not be because I had the gall to defend my legally owned property against corporate thieves and their government pit bulls.
Clue to the aging douchebags of the Supreme Court: the chief reason the free market fails in developing nations is because their governments lack an ingrained respect for property rights. There is no reason to think that principle will not hold true here, too.
UPDATE: This is a good opportunity to address a common misconception. Some critics of capitalism would say that this is exactly what is wrong with it. But eminent domain is, as I noted in a comment below, expressly anti-capitalist. Ironclad property rights are the very foundation of capitalism. The idea that it’s okay to take away someone’s property and give it to someone else if it serves “the common good” (by some arbitrary definition of “good”) is more properly a socialist principle.