buy unique gifts at Zazzle

Jul

4

Property Rights on Independence Day

July 4, 2005 |

Lately there has been much talk about the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case. Much has been said about how this is a profound ruling that shakes the foundations of liberty in this country, but few commentaries discuss the details of why that is, or that the same line of reason that would allow such abuse permeates through our society with ever more dangerous momentum.

Frederic Bastiat, a great liberty-minded thinker once lamented, “…We must admit that our opponents … have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.” Eminent domain abuse is, unfortunately, one of those subjects to which such a rule applies. But it is terribly important because any free and civilized society requires that property rights not be trampled. As well, private property rights are at the core of any first-world economy. Those countries that most respect private property rights are wealthiest, from its richest citizens down to its poorest, vs. those countries that rely on other systems.

In a larger context, a person with no property rights at all is essentially living under a form of slavery. That is because in slave systems, slaves have no ultimate ownership of their self. Someone else owns them, and has final authority over whatever it is they create. Absent self-ownership, a person does not own their own labor, and by inference, they are incapable of accumulating property without the permission of their masters. The property a slave might acquire may be taken at the whims of those with the power to do so.

Hence, given the sheer depravity of such an arrangement, most reasonable people would agree that slavery is despicable. Moreover, they would also concur that being forced to live as a slave 50% or 25% of the time, or even 10% or 5%, is still wrong and should not be tolerated.

But many bristle at making a connection of slavery to property rights. Property is not labor, they say, and has nothing to do with slavery except in the mind of extremists. But to believe that line of reasoning, you would have to ignore the fact that property is nothing but an extension of one’s labor. In fact, for most people, property it is the historical representation of their labor.

Think about it: When you go to work, you exchange your labor for money. An employer is actually buying your labor from you. The money earned is simply the product of your labor and is thereafter your property. As a store value equal to that day’s labor, it may then be exchanged for some other form of property in the future. That property you buy with your money could be a car, a TV, or as in Connecticut, real estate; it does not matter. But what is undeniable is that if productive folks didn’t work and voluntarily exchange their labor for money, they’d have nothing to use in exchange when they want to buy property.

That said, if someone is forced to be a slave today, they are having their labor stolen that day. If a third party is legally allowed to confiscate those same wages one day later and without the wage earner’s consent, there is functionally no difference between both actions other than time. Be it one day later, or a week or a year later, if you have no final claim to your own labor or fruits thereof, it is slavery just the same. That said, labor and property are identical but for the difference of time.

What if the third party claims only a percentage of your past wages? Or a certain percentage of your real estate? What if those wages are converted into real estate in Connecticut, and you are forced to exchange them for whatever the third party deems acceptable and the Supreme Court allows?

While such examples are not stooping to the depths of Old South plantation style slavery where 100% of everything belonged to the master, we have arrived at a point where elected officials and voters can, at their discretion, claim first dibs on your stuff if they so choose. That is what was affirmed by this Supreme Court ruling. That you retain most of your property is not because you have first and complete rights to what is yours as an inherent right, but rather because the voters and politicians – and the government – have simply decided, for now, that you may keep it for lack of better immediate use by those who have political clout.

That, friends, is a far cry from the system intended to be enshrined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is why the 16th constitutional amendment was required to allow for April 15 to become an officially dreaded day in this nation, even if we’ve forgotten the debate over why it was considered to be such a terrible idea. And, that is why many who derive their power politically or legislatively don’t want you to fully understand property rights, or speak of them in the terms I have in this piece. Doing so is in an indictment of the immorality of great majority of their actions, never mind their purported noble objectives.

Were we to restore property rights, those tied to government would be unable to simply take what they want for their own use or pet causes. They would be out of business, out of power, and left to accomplish their objectives the way the rest of us in the private sector must do it: through persuasion instead of brute confiscatory force backed by the government and politically powerful voting blocks. In other words, to have our support, they would have to convince us it made sense to participate in whatever their plans are, and if we didn’t think it was correct, we could simply say, “thanks, but no thank you – I’ll pass.”

Certainly, given that many in the United States are not educated very well on these finer nuances of freedom, some currently supportive of this behavior might be appalled to learn that they have unwittingly crossed over to the dark side since this conduct in line with authoritarians and at polar opposites with liberty. Yet, a great majority already have come to terms with such methods. They simply believe that the ends they pursue are noble, and therefore justify the means. And, as Bastiat noted in the earlier quote, they have an easy time making pleas on behalf of some citizens, often appealing to envy and pitting the “haves” against the “have not’s.”

Whatever the case, they much prefer that you don’t analyze the true implications of the means they advocate and will do their utmost to label others who point out the true nature of such actions as dangerous extremists. They confuse the issue by making their stated objective the fulcrum of the debate. This allows them to throw around the accusation that if they are supporting what is a noble objective, by inference anyone objecting to their means is therefore against their objective, and consequently, immoral or even criminal. But this is nothing short of cheap manipulative slight of hand. For example, if I object to their plans for economic development, or for that matter, their plans for poverty or education, this does not infer that I am against economic development, or against the poor, or in support of keeping people uneducated. It simply means that I believe there are other more effective ways of dealing with these realities, and especially ones that don’t trample rights central to freedom and liberty.

But with this Supreme Court ruling as a glaring example, we are trading liberty and freedom for government solutions to our problems. This trend being over 100 years old and growing in momentum, our system is no longer the freedom-based republic that was created from the events of 1776. Instead, our present system of government is better described as a growing collectivist-democracy, where groups strive to acquire critical voting mass, and with it they vote themselves the ability to allocate as they see fit whatever rights and property they can confiscate from other less politically powerful constituencies. Kept modestly in the boundaries of “good taste” and careful not to bite off more than an oblivious population is willing to tolerate, it is a slow process, but always moving forward. Politicians merely serve as middlemen, pitting one side against the other, shifting on issues as expediency demands.

To this end, H.L. Mencken described it best when he noted over fifty years ago, “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

Some are quick to dismiss Mencken for his blunt words, but on this matter he is supported by the facts: Today the masses, goaded by politicians, vote to initiate otherwise immoral actions that society does not tolerate among private individuals. If I rounded up some thugs to move the property owners in Connecticut out of my way and at a price of my choosing, I’d be thrown in jail. But if I launder those exact same actions through “democracy” and support it with a litany of justifications that the objective is “good for society”, I am supported by the Supreme Court, no less.

Politicians also take advantage of the fact that most Americans are ignorant of the certainty that our founding fathers despised democracy as a form of tyranny. Moreover, by and large it is not understood that “what is good for society” is very subjective, or that having only one official version of it locked in by law is more in line with the philosophy of Marx than that of Jefferson. But we shouldn’t expect the products of government schools, that indoctrinate our youth about the legends of Saints FDR and Johnson, or the greatness of socialist themes, while teaching that the ideas of Jeffersonian liberty are outdated and useless, and are now the opinions suitable only for extremist radical elements living as militias in the mountains of Idaho.

Many will argue that the Constitution as it was written was imperfect, and that it needed to be improved and reinterpreted to reflect current times. And so the Supreme Court ruling merely reflects this. Certainly errors were made by those of past eras by withholding certain constitutional rights from some citizens at various points in our nation’s history, as it was with slavery and voting. But while those blights on our national record of liberty have been addressed, they are replaced by new ones supported by new majorities that are equally self-righteous in their belief that their actions are somehow good for society, never mind the victims.

Victims?

Surely many who might feel a tinge of sympathy for the Connecticut property owners will draw a line with that word. After all, perhaps the Connecticut case is not ideal, but to restore property rights to each individual is simply not something that is acceptable because without the ability to collect and regulate, many projects they deem worthy for society would end. Supporters can therefore never allow the word “victim” to be used to describe those forced to cough up property (be it money or real estate) or rights.

But that does not change the fact that roughly 5% of the population pays well over 50% of all taxes, and 10% pays over 80%. But to the self anointed society Szars, taxpayers are not victims. How dare we call a wealthy tax payer a victim? They are “the fortunate” and the “winners of life’s lottery”, never mind the true economics of providing value behind the accumulation of wealth for the great majority of individuals. These folks have the money, and therefore they must have it taken from them to pay for the projects of the political establishment and their voting minions. The have’s must give to the have-not’s — OR ELSE!

But again, that is the argument that glosses over the immorality of the means. Can a doctor not theoretically be a slave if he were forced to work for free at all times? Can an entrepreneur who gives up over 50% of his income be considered 50% of a slave? Charity, after all, is voluntary. Being threatened that if you don’t give up your property or you will be jailed or shot if your resist is something entirely different, even if a majority of society can justify to itself that a certain demographic is suitable to serve as the means of funding. As such, democracy without property rights, as Gerald O’Driscoll, Jr. commented, is nothing but “two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch.”

Poor Economic Use

The sheer immorality of all this aside, in order to support all this eminent domain rubbish, you have to operate with the presumption that centrally-planned economic development is actually a plus in the equation, instead of simply displacing the more natural and sustained development that would happen otherwise if those diverted resources were left in the hands of the original owners. After all, there is ample evidence that suggests such forays into this type of development not only fail, but also make things worse. Although, it is clear that the worse conditions created provide yet more ammunition for more centrally-planned intervention, and a beneficial growth opportunity for those whose livelihoods depend on such intervention.

Indeed, the only reliable beneficiaries in such a downward spiral are those connected well enough into the power structure to benefit: the developers awarded lucrative contracts in the development process, or the immediate beneficiaries of the development program. And, of course, there are the politicians who seem to create ever more demand for what it is they hawk to the masses.

Meanwhile, many examples abound where fancy new buildings stand completely unproductive in areas that grow more blighted after the project is finished… and that’s when we hear the excuse that phase two (and three, and four, and…) obviously will be needed to “complete” the project and make it finally productive, as Phase I was never intended to be a stand alone project.

Pittsburgh, where this author has lived most of his life, is a perfect example of such messes, and those who stand up and call this obvious racket what is are dismissed as cranky obstructionists working against the poor and a good economic future. Such is the life of those of us not so full of ourselves to believe that only we have “progressive” ideas to such a level to call ourselves by the title “progressive”.

In closing, the greatest defense of property rights is that without them, countries slide into a morass of instability and cronyism. Author, and successful global entrepreneur and investor, Jim Rogers, covered this subject thoroughly in his two books, The Investment Biker and The Adventure Capitalists. Wherever the author went, where property was not secure and the protection of property rights was not a cultural focus, he found economic cancer and decay. Such is the direction our country is heading as individuals and entrepreneurs give up their rights to the politically powerful movements and corporations that get what they want through government force instead of mutual consent.

Funamentally, Kelo vs. New London was decided in order dignify the methods used by proponents of socialist agendas, so they may continue working at redistributing wealth and rights from one group to another. That is why Kelo was sacrificed to the wolves — sacrificed to the politicians and corporate welfare of New London, Connecticut.

Think about that this Independence Day weekend. For what kind of America do you wave your flag? After all, the evil King George the Colonies rebelled against was only a fraction as intrusive into the freedoms of the colonials as is our own government is today with its own citizens. And so it is, what we tolerate is what we have.

Ironically, it is as if chains forged by citizen voters themselves don’t hurt as badly as if they were from some dictator or tyrant King. But chains are chains, never mind dying slogans like “The Land of the Free.” Just because some folks vote it to be, does not make lousy actions we’d never tolerate in the private sector noble or moral. The ruling on Kelo vs. New London certainly does not fall under the definitions of “freedom” or “liberty”.


Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

FireStats iconPowered by FireStats