The Overton Window of Property Rights in America

The Overton Window is a concept that describes a narrow window along the political spectrum that contains the ideas the public will accept. This window can be anywhere from total anarchy to total state control. Here in America I think our Overton Window of property rights is too close to the total state control end of the political spectrum. That probably doesn’t sit well with most people who think of themselves as staunch supporters of property rights. I am willing to bet that the perception of acceptable property rights for most Americans fall somewhere in the socialism section of the political spectrum.

I will present a scenario and you decide which person is the property owner, and which is not. “John” lives in a house on some property. He is free to make changes to the house or add additional buildings on the lot as long as he gets permission from “Sally”. If John doesn’t give Sally an appropriate amount of money each year he is kicked out of the house. I think everyone would agree that Sally is the owner and John is the renter. Consider that in this scenario John represents what we would call property owners and Sally, the owner, represents our government.

John is allowed to live in the house, but changes or additions must be done with Sally’s permission. This represents our building codes and zoning ordinances. John can only make changes or additions after he gets a permit and complies with all of the requirements that the government sees fit to enforce. Clearly Sally, our government, is the owner. In order to stay on the property John has to pay Sally rent every year, this represents property taxes. If payment isn’t made John is no longer allowed on the property, just like a property owner who does not pay his taxes. Clearly Sally, our government, is the owner in every sense of the word and we are allowed to be but stewards of said property.

Many people make the argument that we cannot allow people to do whatever they want with their property. Maybe they will build a bar, or strip club, or put lots of livestock on it, the list of perceived unacceptable uses goes on and on. Admittedly there will be people that do things that their neighbors, and entire neighborhoods will not like or approve of, and those things may even lower surrounding neighbor’s property value. Letting others have the freedom to own and use property does leave open the possibility that your neighbor may use his freedom in a way that you do not like. So instead we as a society are content to support socialistic laws in order to make ourselves feel like we are protecting our neighborhoods. In reality if property rights were uninhibited there would be little to no change in most communities.

I understand why most people support our current zoning laws, and are afraid to let others use their property as they see fit. That is a fine opinion to have but we should all understand that doing so is supporting a degree of socialism, and it is an opinion in direct conflict with the right to own and control private property. Most people say they are for individual liberty, but mostly they are only concerned about their own individual liberty, and not that of their neighbor. As far as property rights go my own personal feelings are summed up well by Thomas Jefferson: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Hopefully as a society we can begin to have the opinion that if someone owns property they can do with it what they like, without seeking the opinion of anyone else. As we adopt this line of thinking the Overton Window of property rights will slide closer to the total freedom side of the political spectrum, where I believe the Founder’s would have wanted it.

Knucklehead Chickens and Freedom

I have had backyard chickens for about three years.  A few months ago I discovered one of my chickens was eating eggs.  This can be one of the most difficult habits for a chicken owner to break.  I decided to take the hen out of the coop and let her run around with my rooster who is also running free.  I told my children that chickens are good for one thing, food.  If she eats eggs there is only one other way she can provide food and she would soon discover it.  Because her behavior pretty much signed her own death warrant I gave her a name: Knucklehead.  The first chance I had she was going to go the way of all chicken, and end up in the freezer.  
    I got too busy and she ended up running around for a few weeks, then one day she was gone.  About three weeks after that she showed up again, but she wasn’t alone, she had five chicks with her.  It has been fun to watch her and the chicks run around our yard totally free.  I have had a snake eating eggs from my coop.  There have also been stray dogs in my yard, and a couple of cats.  All of these can pose a threat to the young chicks especially without the protection of the coop.  I started to think that I needed to get those chicks into the coop so they would be safe.  They may enjoy the freedom of roaming the yard freely, but it is much too dangerous for them.  As I have thought about my chickens different situations I couldn’t help but make an observation about their circumstances and our own.  
    Most of my chickens are in a coop.  Their entire world consists of a coop and fenced in yard.  They are free to move about as they please, and do whatever they like, within the coop of course.  They are protected from all of their natural predators, fed, watered, and sheltered.  But, when I try to catch one to make freezer chicken there is no escape, their fate is sealed.
    Knucklehead and her chicks are basically on their own.  They are free to move about anywhere they like with no limits.  They do not have protection from predators, food, water, or shelter provided for them.  They are totally reliant on themselves.  I found the nest where she had hatched her chicks.  I think my looking in on them and my children bothering them caused Knucklehead reason for concern so she moved her nest, she was able to escape a perceived threat.  I think these two types of chickens represent two different kinds of people, and to a large extent we determine which kind of chicken we are.
    One type of chicken wants the safety and security of the coop, and to rely on someone for their food, and shelter.  They are happy and accepting of the structures that limit their freedom as long as it provides security.
    The other type of chickens provide solely for themselves.  They have no security, food, or shelter other than what they can provide.  They are happy with the freedom they enjoy and accept the responsibility that comes with it.  They are reluctant to be confined by anything and resist being enclosed.  They are not threatened by another chicken’s freedom.
    Some of the things that make up our societal chicken coop are unjust laws, government welfare, and zoning ordinances to name a few.  Unjust laws include seat-belt laws, drug laws, or any other law that prevents an activity that does not directly produce a victim.  Government welfare includes food stamps, housing assistance, grants, or any money the government takes from one person that has earned it and gives it to another who as not.  Zoning ordinances and regulations allow for individuals to control property that they do not own.
    I think it is important to discover which type of chicken we are.  Are we content to be in the coop, to be safe and provided for, and do we want the same for everyone?  Or do we want to have more freedom?  Do we want to have to be responsible for ourselves?  Are we willing to let others have their freedom, even if we don’t agree with their choices, so that we might have freedom as well?  If we can identify which type of chicken we are we can then decide which type we want to be.  How to make that determination and/or change can be difficult.  To better understand how to recognize what makes up society’s coop I suggest Frederic Bastiat’s pamphlet, “The Law”, and Henry David Thoreau’s pamphlet “Civil Disobedience” as great starting points.
Knucklehead and her chicks are doing just fine on their own.  I worry that without the protection and security that I can provide I may lose some or all of them.  Whether or not that happens at least they have had the chance to live like real chickens.  

Coming to Beaver this Friday

 

• Friday, June 14, 2013

  7:00 PM

• Minersville Library

  40 West Main, Minersville, UT

  

  SELF • MARRIAGE • FAMILY • COMMUNITY

  Come listen to some answers to our country’s problems in a way you may have never heard before. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS CHANCE TO HAVE A REAL PARADIGM SHIFT!

   

  “The ancients who wished to illustrate the highest virtue throughout the empire first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their own states, they first regulated their own families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their own selves.

  “Wishing to cultivate their own selves, they rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts.

  “Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost, their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

  “Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their own selves were cultivated.

  “Their own selves being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole empire was made tranquil and happy.”

  –Confucius

 

Vices

Drug use is taboo in our society. Not only do most people choose not to do it, but they want to use the governments power to ensure others do not use them either. While this is a noble thought, no individual possesses the right to prohibit any other individual from using any substance they choose. Most adults are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and do not need moral busy-bodies to make those choices for them. Three of the common arguments for prohibiting drug use are (1) it’s bad for them, (2) if they use, then they might influence others to use as well, (3) individuals may do something to harm someone else while under the influence. While it is true that drugs are bad for a person if used incorrectly, there are also many benefits to their use. The fact that they may be used in a manner that would harm an individual does not give any one the right to tell that individual they cannot use them. Soda pop is a widely used product that can also cause harm to those who use it inappropriately, but try to take our pop away and there would be a national uprising. I myself am addicted to the caffeine in Mountain Dew. I know this for a fact because I get headaches when I reduce my intake. I know the carbonated water in pop is also not good for me, but I choose to drink pop because I like it. I enjoy drinking it. The fact that it is not good for me (reason #1 for making drugs illegal) does not give government the right to tell me I can’t drink it. When reason #1 is applied to pop the argument seems ridiculous, but the principle between the two is the same, the drugs are all that is different. Applying reason #1 to farming seems equally as ridiculous. If for some reason a farmer decided to spread heavy amounts of salt on his fields instead of fertilizer would anyone run to protect the farmer from his bad decision? No. We would allow the farmer to make his own decisions and then live with the consequences. We may try to convince him of the error of his decision, but no one would try to forcibly make him make a better decision. Likewise if a grocery store owner decides to sell everything in his store for 10% of what it was marked at the day before who would rush to the aid of the store owner and force his prices back up “for his own good”? Nobody. The store owner is free to price his items as he pleases, but he also must live with the consequences of his actions. If the choices of the pop drinker, farmer, or store owner hurt themselves we, as a society, don’t turn to the government and make those actions illegal. We allow people to decide for themselves, but on the issue of drug use we do just the opposite. If the farmer or store owner make a foolish decision it could very well influence someone else to make the same foolish mistake, reason (2) for outlawing drug use. This argument is no more valid than the first. It’s safe to say that no farmer, or store owner would follow the example of someone who clearly is doing something that is going to harm their business. But again we don’t make those decisions illegal just because someone might follow their bad example. Another farmer or store owner may follow the bad example, and learn for themselves that heavy amounts of salt on your field will not help the crops, or grossly underpricing you goods will cause you to lose money. Those individuals would be left to gain that knowledge for themselves, and pay the price for it. An individual under the influence of drugs could very well do something to hurt someone else (3). Driving while under the influence is an example, but we already have laws in place making that practice illegal. There is no need to also make the drug use in general illegal. If this is our reasoning for making drugs illegal then alcohol needs to be illegal also, as it inhibits the driving ability of those under its influence. We as a society have arbitrarily decided that that is a risk we are willing to live with. Many states have laws against texting while driving. The odds that a person will cause an accident goes up if they are texting while driving. Our solution to this problem is not to outlaw cell phones for everyone, everywhere, but that is what we have done with drug use. A person texting someone from their living room poses no threat to anyone, a person using drugs in their living room is likewise not a threat to anyone. If we were consistent in our principles we would either make alcohol and cell phones illegal, or we would make drugs legal. We have been taught as a society that drugs are “bad” and the negative stigma associated with them is enough to convince the general public that those things need to be done away with. The truth is that if there is a market for it, it will never go away. Prohibition did not work because there was a market for it. The market went “underground” and criminals got rich from it, much like what has happened from our war on drugs. We think we have the right to prohibit an individual from using whatever substances they want to whether for health reasons, influencing others, or the possibility of harming someone else. When these various reasons are applied to other aspects of our every day lives they seem ridiculous, and they are. Thomas Jefferson described liberty as the freedom to do what you’d like within the limits created by the equal rights of others. Individuals do not have the right to force their neighbor to stop using drugs. If the individual does not posses that right, a group of individuals (society) cannot posses that right. Before the 1920’s there were no illegal drugs. Opium could be bought at the local drug store. We were not a nation of drug addicts, but the most prosperous nation the world had ever seen. Portugal decriminalized drugs and their drug usage dropped, overdoses dropped, and related crimes dropped. They educated their people. That is the answer to our drug problems; education and loving persuasion, while respecting the rights of all, even if they make decisions we do not agree with. By criminalizing drugs we make criminals out of individuals that have not transgressed the rights of another, but even worse we also deprive people of the ability to use their agency, and gain knowledge for themselves. Victimless “crimes” are not really crimes at all.

Democracy vs. Republic

No matter what type of government we have, we as citizens have the responsibility, I would even say the duty, to take an active part in our political process and in keeping our elected officials on the straight and narrow, so to speak.  However, I do believe that the words  we use have specific meanings, and those subtle distinctions are important.  I guess this can be called splitting hairs, but I think it is a hair worth splitting.
I would agree that the term representative democracy is used as a partial definition for republic.  But it is just that, partial.  It is a component of our republic, not a replacement or simile.  The main component of democracy is “majority rule”.  Majority rule is exactly what the founders where trying to avoid when they established our government.  Our republic is the rule of law.  The supreme law of our land, the Constitution, would be quite difficult to amend by getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment  with only a 51% majority in favor of a specific change, but not impossible.  Our founders tried to insulate our government from becoming a government of majority rule as best they could.
Originally the House of Representatives were the only elected officials directly elected by the people, it is our voice in the government.  Senators were originally elected by each states respective legislatures.  The senate was to represent the interests of the individual states, not be a redundant voice of the people.  Candidates for President were originally nominated by the electoral college, and elected by the House of Representatives.  By the states choosing the electoral college and the House making the actual election, the voice of the people and the interests of the states both played a part in electing a president.
I state these things because I believe it is important to see what we started out as, and compare it to what we have become.  There were layers of representatives to protect our government from being a simple majority rule.   Now our Senate, and for all intents and purposes our President are elected by the majority. I feel that the Constitution, upheld  by the Supreme Court, is the only thing we have that keeps us from being a total majority rule, or democracy.  We have taken down most of the safe guards that our founders put into place to keep us a republic.  It could be argued that we are actually more of a representative democracy than we are a republic.  This is concerning to me because of the warnings from our founders about democracy, and that in the communist manifesto, Karl Marx makes the case that democracy is the first step towards socialism.  Few Americans want socialism, but if we continue to flirt with the idea that it is okay to be a democracy, one day (in the not to distant future I believe) we will wake up to find ourselves living in a socialist society and we won’t even know how we got there.

Ron Paul

The tea party, as I understand it, is trying to change the direction our government has been taking us.  Some of the biggest issues that bother tea party members are excessive spending (accompanied with inflation, and our national debt problem), our representatives not following our founding documents, and the federal government continually getting bigger and more intrusive in our lives.  Both parties have contributed to the problems that our nation faces, and both are reluctant to change the course we’re on.  Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a plan to balance the budget in his first term.  His plan would cut one trillion from the budget in his first year, and balance the budget in three years.  When Ron Paul says cut, he means and actual cut from the previous year’s budget, not a cut in the increase in spending.  To help balance the budget, and reduce the size and scope of government, he would eliminate five federal agencies. He also wants a full audit, and eventual dissolution, of the Federal Reserve, which is robbing those in our country that have saved their hard earned money through inflating our currency. No other candidate is even coming close to talking about the cuts and actions necessary to balance the budget, restore our nations financial stability, and reduce the controlling influence of our federal government.  In my opinion the most important of all the principles during any election (from local all the way to federal) is a candidates adherence to the Constitution.  In over twenty years in the House of Representatives Ron Paul has NEVER voted contrary to the Constitution.  The Constitution is an inspired document written to protect our God given rights, and Ron Paul will never do anything to diminish the protection of those rights.  I feel the current administration is following a road that will end up driving our nation off of a cliff at ninety miles per hour. Considering their past records if Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum are elected President they will continue on the same road driving our nation towards that same cliff, albeit at a somewhat slower pace.  America is in need of a President that isn’t afraid to hit the blinker and take a different road.

Who is to blame?

Our country didn’t arrive at the predicament we’re in overnight.  Who is to blame for this?  Democrats?  Republicans?  All politicians?  I say the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the American people.  As a people we have been blessed with a republican form of government that protects us in our rights.  We are also fortunate to have a government that we can control, but as a people we haven’t used this power to keep our government officials in check.  Instead of voting for men and women of principle we get caught up in “who can win”.  The most popular candidates win instead of the most principled.  This is nothing new, it’s been going on for most of our country’s history.  During our country’s founding the most popular people were the most principled people because the populace cared about principle.  I’m not sure we do anymore, or at least it isn’t the most important quality in a candidate.  I’ve talked to multiple people that say something along the lines of “I really like candidate X, but he/she can’t win”.  I ask, if they have good principles and standards for government why can’t they win?  They should be the only candidates that CAN win.  It is my contention that as long as we are more concerned with whether or not a candidate can win, and not about the principles they stand for we will continue to get politicians that are more popular than principled.  It has been my experience that someone that is popular will tend to do whatever he or she has to do to stay popular, even if that means comprising on his or her principles.  We the people can reign in an out of control government, but it will take electing politicians that stick to correct principles, and the only way we will get that is if we, as a people vote on principle, and not popularity.