Just as freedom of speech is meaningless until someone says something "offensive", so are property rights meaningless until someone decides to use their property in a way you disagree with.
Very few people need to defend the property rights of the guy with the neatly trimmed, water-wasting lawn, with nothing in it but a birdbath (cleaned daily to prevent mosquito propagation) in front of the perfectly maintained house. The only time you are likely to have to defend that person's property rights is when the State decides to steal his property via "eminent domain".
The person who needs others to rally to his defense is the guy whose idea of a great place to live differs from that of his neighbors.
Whether it's the tall weeds, the crop of Cannabis, the herd of goats, his "unlicensed" home-based business, or his prized, rusted Yugo in the middle of the front yard, the "community" wants to force him to keep his property they way "the majority" has decided it must be kept, and they will steal his property as punishment if he doesn't comply.
And this is the guy who will illustrate to observers whether you really believe in property rights, or if you just make a show as long as you aren't uncomfortable.
So which will it be? What kind of excuses will you come up with why this guy must give up his rights for "the common good"? Or, will you really defend him?
.
One of the little paradoxes of zoning / planning permissions and other commune -ity interference with property
ReplyDeleteThe ones who are most vociferous and most implacable in calling for others to be bullied, are the ones who are least invested in the community - they're the ones who have no intentions of staying around.
They just want to realize as high a price as they can for the house and trade up, leaving all of the shit they cause, behind.