Property, the Law, Liberty, and the State

Some people are confused about the relationship between property, the law, liberty, and the role of government.

Most do not understand that first and foremost, liberty belongs to each individual. They own certain basic rights to life and liberty even before they emerge from the womb. Governments cannot take away rights, only infringe upon them.

One of our basic rights as human beings is that of pursuing property. We have no right to property in the socialist sense of having property doled out to us. However, we can pursue it and once obtained, we can keep it. This right is also independent of government. We do not need government's permission to obtain or own it. Laws and legislatures do not exist to create rights or property because these concepts exist whether or not you have a government.

The purpose of government is to defend rights and property, not to interfere in the system to impose its idea of justice. Justice comes when each are free to pursue opportunities. Justice is not created when outcomes end up equal regardless of merit, work, or even luck. Gaps between richer and poorer occur because of different levels of productivity and they are natural. Left alone, those who have less will work to their own personal level of satisfaction. Some are satisfied with a small home, satellite TV, and a pickup truck and will only invest enough labor to achieve that level of material reward. Others have higher ambitions. If their judgment and level of work investment reflect those, they will obtain a higher material reward. That is justice.

Law and government becomes perverted when the state moves outside its necessary guidelines. Actions in the economic sphere by the government only reflect political morality, not recognition of rights. Implementation of a government ideal of justice and morality only causes dissent, disharmony, and disobedience. It is not cooperation, it is not compassion, it is coerced conformity.

These ideas were written almost a hundred and fifty years ago by the French economist Claude Frederic Bastiat. They are more relevant now than ever.

How laws and sausages are made

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. Prince Otto von Bismarck

Over the past several months I have had the pleasure of working on the Mineral Coutny Clean Up Committee. The purpose of the committee lay in trying to formulate a law to address abandoned and unsafe buildings. Many on the committee had ideal responses to this issue formulated in their heads before getting to work.

Include me among them. Private property counts as one of the most sacred rights granted to man. Not the right to have it, but the right to work to earn it, then enjoy the rewards of that work. Interference with property rights ought to only occur after careful consideration. Property gives a man, or a woman, or a family a sense of stability and permanence. It is their rock against the slings and arrows fired by life in the real world. I saw no purpose in the ordinance myself (on that point I agreed with Gary Howell and many others), but felt that working with the committee might help create a law with less problems for average owners.

The real world often intervenes with how we view the world ideally. The county commission had a strong interest in seeing an ordinance established. Governor Manchin pushed these actions at the county level by threatening to withold funds. An ordinance would occur in some form or another. The key lay in getting a law that would be as fair as possible to property owners.

Regardless of how the press covered these meetings, they were at times contentious. Gary Howell and his supporters fought hard for a law that would limit government authority, strictly define its actions, and provide maximum protections for property owners, especially the poor and middle class. Others wanted a law that granted more robust powers and a more loosely defined authority to the county. Verbal battles raged over these issues and others. Like almost any heated discussion, the real fight lay over what fundamental principles would serve as the foundation for this law. It was agreed at one point to use a similar ordinance created by Raleigh County as a template and change it to fit Mineral County.

At the end of the day both sides got some of what they wanted. Many irrelevant terms such as "blighted area" and "junked vehicles" were expunged from the ordinance. Otherwise they might have opened a slight crack in the legal door for laws that could affect people's rights in other areas. The most obnoxious parts of the Raleigh County law lay in extremely oppressive fines, but these were mitigated somewhat. However Howell and his supporters were unable to secure a specific sliding scale of fines and time needed to complete repairs based upon income. Proposals to grant special grace periods to the disabled and those in federal poverty programs were also rejected.

Serving on a committee such as this one was a rewarding experience. Everyone who has the time, patience, and the concern for their community ought to participate in something like this at least once. Like Chancellor von Bismarck tried to explain, this was not always a pretty sight. However raised voices, argument, and dissention mean that at least two people care about their community and the people in it. Bismarck said it is better not to see laws being made, but on the other hand he did not govern a country that valued democratic republican government as we do.

I can't speak for sausage making, but take the opportunity to watch a law being made. Whether or not you like the experience, you will definitely learn a lot.

Live Free or Die?

“Live free or die,” the state motto of New Hampshire, challenges the mind and offers a stark choice. Either exist as free men and woman, enjoying all of the rights God and Creation grant to every human being, or die fighting for them. Of course this does not describe the full range of choices, which include accepting tyranny. If ever given that choice, what would America do in 2007? What would you do as an individual?

Never has America seen a time when people agreed on this ideal. Patrick Henry defied Britain in 1775 by proclaiming “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Others chose to follow the British, some out of conviction, but to others it seemed the most secure choice. Those that argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein cite the relative peace over the land that was purchased at the cost of liberty. They conveniently forget the people massacred and tortured by that “orderly” regime. Right now the people of Iraq at least have a choice to make and many of them stand by the ideal of “live free or die.”

Will we ever have these choices to make? Certainly we hope not. The ancient Athenians and citizens of the Roman Republic probably believed that their governments would always respect their natural liberties, but as we know they eventually faced subjugation. Tyranny does not always come at once. Josef Stalin used the phrase salami tactics to describe how he would deprive people or countries of their sovereignty. You do not take all of it at once, but slice off a little bit here and there over time. Eventually you get what you want and people are more easily reconciled to it. That is how freedom disappears in the face of concerted effort.

Whether it is property rights in Mineral County or gun rights across the land, you can bet that over time, attempts will be made to slice away at them bit by bit. Standing up now to protect those rights even when it is a minor incursion, means that we will continue to only have one of the choices listed above and that is to live free.