Property rights in their dog days
(My Clovis News Journal column for September 20, 2013)
The recent anti-property rights ordinance- disguised as a "pest control measure"- should hammer the point home that there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" (many of those advocating for this ordinance call themselves "conservatives") - there are only those who hunger to control others and take their property, and those who have no such compulsion.
You might be shocked to learn I would oppose any "law" that forbade property owners from eliminating prairie dogs on their own land just as passionately as I oppose this ordinance which criminalizes prairie dogs on private property. "Private property"? I suppose we can dispense with that illusion now.
Either "law" is wrong in the same way. Either you are forced to allow animals on your property or forced to kill them if they set foot on it. By advocating one position, you automatically legitimize the other side's position. You can't have it both ways, and trying to do so just furthers the growth of socialism.
It also brings to attention another inconvenient fact: you can't legitimately criminalize indigenous nature- although it has been attempted since the first control freak gained the power to enforce his whims on others, especially in the past century under the guise of "fighting drug abuse". Wild animals are wild. They are not under the control of property owners. No one can tell them to not trespass, and since trespass is a human concept, it would be ridiculous to try. Leave it to government to impose ridiculousness by edict.
Since private property owners are being burdened with the responsibility for the wildlife on their property, lets take a look at "poaching laws". If you are responsible for the wildlife on your land, then that wildlife is yours to do with as you see fit. No need to ask permission from anyone, or to get any sort of "license" or permit. Once again, you can't have it both ways.
Recently, in Colorado, some petty tyrants were thrown out of office for just this kind of legislative abuse. Will you continue to throw your support behind those who would violate your rights, or will you hold them accountable?
In my fondest dreams I imagine that silly overreach of this sort will be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" and get people to see the game for what it is. In reality, I know most people who oppose this violation of property rights will continue to justify the exact same type of acts against other people's property, as long as the stated goal is one with which they agree.
Where will you stand?
.
One of the main differences between left and right is what they want to control and which group is most affected by the controls.
ReplyDeleteThe old left-right divide started with the French Parliament, with those sitting on the left the reformers and revolutionist and those sitting on the right were the royalist conservatives. This is a faulty concept when talking about the force of government. I put it this way, on the left is 0% government on the right is 100% government. Neither can be realized, however, most governments, including the U.S., are well to the right of 50%. I put the U.S., with its myriad of laws, regulating nearly every aspect of life, at at least 80%.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington said the "Government is not eloquence; it is force. It makes a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."
The people, after decades of public schooling (government brain-washing), are blind to the fearsome dangers of the force of government. As Brian said in the movie The Life of Brian: "You can do it yourself." To which the people answered. "Yes, we can do it ourselves... . Tell us how to do it."