Mr. Lewis’ Jan. 19 letter to the Forum conveniently evades the central issue of my earlier letter. That issue is property rights. He concedes that we all have certain inalienable rights and lists “freedom of speech, press, worship or assembly.”
Mr. Lewis’ Jan. 19 letter to the Forum conveniently evades the central issue of
my earlier letter. That issue is property rights.
He concedes that we all
have certain inalienable rights and lists “freedom of speech, press, worship or
assembly.” He explicitly states ” … the opportunity of a corporate enterprise
to make a commercial development is clearly not in the same category…” In
this he is wrong.
First, corporations are nothing more than groups of
individuals who have aggregated their assets, and, as. individuals acting in
concert, they are endowed with the same rights as they would were they acting
individually.
Mr. Lewis employs this trick to give you the impression that
its us against the big bad corporations and thus lead you away from the real
problem with placing property rights on the ballot-an assault on anyone’s
property rights affects the property rights of us all.
If Mr. Lewis feels,
as I do, that corporations with lots of money have an unfair advantage in
securing development approval by governmental agencies, then he should consider
a position that removes the government from the land regulation business.
Without government interference in the market, via zoning, land use
designations etc., there would be no approvals required and therefore no
campaign contributions necessary, no special favors and no opportunity for
corruption.
Corruption can only exist where government is
involved.
The other grievous error Mr. Lewis makes is in separating
property rights from other constitutionally protected rights. Property rights
are so intertwined with our natural, Creator endowed rights that they are
simply inseparable and indistinguishable.
If we accept that life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness are the founding expression of all individual
rights then we must accept that the most basic property right is that in our
own body. As such, it is obvious that we have an explicit and absolute right in
our creations and the fruits of our labor.
These creations and rewards of
our labors are our possessions-our property. The truth of this has been
recognized for centuries and is reflected in Common Law, which originated in
England in the 10th century, and in documents such as the Magna Carta.
Placing property rights on the ballot is no less repugnant than subjecting the
free press to such an outrage.
Perhaps Mr. Lewis does not see that
assigning part or all of a person’s property rights, specifically the decision
of its use to the public via the election process is a clear taking of
property. I may be mistaken but I don’t recall Mr. Lewis mentioning anything
about just compensation either.
Finally, subjecting property rights to
popular vote would subvert the rule of law. The rule of law ensures that all
parties know the governing parameters or “rules of the game” ahead of time.
Only when these rules are consistent and known can people make decisions and
formulate plans regarding their lives and property.
Property rights that
can be altered, abridged or otherwise diminished at any time by the vagaries of
the political will would prohibit everyone from making any kind of sensible
investment decisions.
Aggravate the wrong people and you could find your
expectation of building a new home, improving the one you have or developing
your property destroyed.
Imagine allowing the fans at a football game to
arbitrarily change the rules during play to suit their fancy. Kind of elevates
the notion of home field advantage to another level doesn’t it?
What
reasonable expectation would any visiting team have that they could win? Would
Mr. Lewis wager $1,000 on a game of checkers with me if I were allowed to
“adjust” the rules as we went along? This is precisely the predicament with
which property owners would be faced under his ballot proposal-to say nothing
of its unconstitutional nature.
In closing I would like address the issue
of democracy that Mr. Lewis raises — that is, that America is a democracy.
This is incorrect.
Our founders considered and rejected pure democracy as
the form of government for America citing purely democratic governments’
tendency to contention, subjugation of minority groups, short lives and violent
deaths. I would also refer Mr. Lewis to Alexis de Tocqueville who characterized
pure democracy as a *tyranny of the major.” America’s founders wisely chose the
republican form.
Mr. Lewis asks if I have a better idea. Well, I can’t
speak for anyone else but I choose to live by the principles of liberty,
property and free markets. These principles require that I respect the rights
of others and compel me to keep my nose out of other peoples’ business. In
other words, my rights stop at the boundaries of all others’ rights.
R. S.
Weir
