Who Needs Freedom?
If you read the Baltimore Sun on a regular basis, you read a lot of editorials which are trite, juvenile, unenlightened, and asinine. But not many of those columns were as disturbing as the one in this morning's paper penned by Roy Gothie of the Maryland State Highway Administration. While Gothie makes valid points about the need to protect the health of the Bay, what he writes is a frightening vision into an O'Malleyian dystopia.
In Gothie's world, people only have property rights at the whim and call of the state:
Rarely, if ever, has the Baltimore Sun ever printed such a direct and vicious assault on the American way of life than it has with this column. I am extremely disturbed by the fact that an individual who has such an anti-American, anti-freedom view of private property rights is, in fact, employed by the state as a planner. What decisions are being made by the State Highway Administration that deal with your property rights and the property rights of your neighbors? In what ways does Roy Gothie believe that the state can put your land to better use than you can? Perhaps it's time for a full and comprehensive investigation into SHA's land use activities
Private property rights are a basic human right, one that has been a part of civilized societies for thousands of years. Unfortunately, sometimes you get delusional folks such as Roy Gothie who believe that humans can't handle our basic human rights. I think maybe the state of Maryland should ship him back to Michigan, whence he came. We can certainly use our state resources better than employing people with such radical views...
In Gothie's world, people only have property rights at the whim and call of the state:
The modern concept of property rights substantially contributes to the Chesapeake Bay's continued decline. At this point, tinkering around the edges of the issue with minor changes to laws and regulations will no longer be enough to save the bay. Only a societal decision to redefine an individual's rights regarding property can restore the bay and other critical ecosystems.Read that again.
Developers, industrialists, homeowners and farmers have long assumed that the core bundle of rights attached to a piece of property exists to benefit the property owners. This is not exactly the case. Property rights are creations of the state, designed to ensure a stable, civil society and a functioning economy. Thus, any property rights a land owner possesses exist mainly to serve the greater public good.
Thus, any property rights a land owner possesses exist mainly to serve the greater public good.In the warped mind of this state bureaucrat, your property rights are valid only so long as what you do with the land conforms to what the state decides is in the state's best interest. If this guy had his way, you would not be able to do anything on your property, property that you have purchased, property that you rightfully have paid for, unless the state allows you to do it in the name of the state and the name of the citizenry.
Rarely, if ever, has the Baltimore Sun ever printed such a direct and vicious assault on the American way of life than it has with this column. I am extremely disturbed by the fact that an individual who has such an anti-American, anti-freedom view of private property rights is, in fact, employed by the state as a planner. What decisions are being made by the State Highway Administration that deal with your property rights and the property rights of your neighbors? In what ways does Roy Gothie believe that the state can put your land to better use than you can? Perhaps it's time for a full and comprehensive investigation into SHA's land use activities
Private property rights are a basic human right, one that has been a part of civilized societies for thousands of years. Unfortunately, sometimes you get delusional folks such as Roy Gothie who believe that humans can't handle our basic human rights. I think maybe the state of Maryland should ship him back to Michigan, whence he came. We can certainly use our state resources better than employing people with such radical views...
Labels: Fringe Left, property rights, Transportation
posted by Brian Griffiths at 9:01 PM
4 Comments:
Anyone who was within 100 yards of an Intro to Philosophy course at any time in their life can see Gothie has his arguement backwards. Property rights create governments, not vice versa. People enter into social compacts to protect life and property. It is that simple, but I guess you don't have to be smart to work for the MVA. As if there was not already a ton of evidence for that one.
Mr. Griffiths:
I must politely disagree with your position regarding the origin of property rights. Specifically, I firmly assert that no human, plant, animal, or ecosystem inherently possesses any rights of any sort whatsoever. Rights do not come from a divine power or some innate characteristic of humanity. The only rights you possess are those that you or those acting on your behalf can, through force or threat of force, require society or individuals to respect. More simply, the rights you have are those you can successfully assert.
My second point would be that the metes and bounds of rights change over time. The founding father’s established a bundle of collective rights that they felt necessary for the functioning of a stable and civil society. These were recorded in the constitution and “We the People” chose as a group to utilize the force of the state to protect and preserve these rights. Please note that the constitution allows for changes in the defined rights through amendments, congressional actions, Supreme Court rulings, and actions by authorized regulatory bodies. Even the common law changes over time to reflect new science and understanding of policy implications. This being the case, the rights in property you assert as being nearly or completely absolute simply are not.
Finally, I submit that there exists room for debate on how to define rights in property within the United States. In fact, I believe a vigorous and ongoing discussion is vital to our nation’s continued prosperity and success. However, I strongly favor rebalancing the definition of success to include both economic and ecological prosperity.
Respectfully,
Roy Gothie
Mr. Gothie:
I respect your belief that "[r]ights do not come from a divine power or some innate characteristic of humanity." But the remainder of your post is open to debate.
By saying that "the rights you have are those you can successfully assert" implies that the strong have more rights than the weak, the wealthy more than the poor, and the armed more than the unarmed. Is it therefore government's duty to level those rights so unjustly held?
The founding fathers established no rights. The U.S. Constitution as passed does not establish rights. The preamble ("We the people . . .") make no reference to rights. The purpose of the constitution is establish the form and powers of government, not to grant rights. The "Bill of Rights" does not grant rights, but more clearly defines the limits of Government ("Congress shall make no law . . ."). In fact, "we the people" chose as a group to relinquish some rights for the purpose of establishing a government.
The common law is bound to change, but it changes because it is the body of all decision made by the courts and similar tribunals. Furthermore, in this country the common law is largely supplanted by statutory law.
You are free to support support legislation further abridging property rights in the name of the common good. But, such law cannot and does not change the inherent rights in property.
I respect your belief that "[r]ights do not come from a divine power or some innate characteristic of humanity." But the remainder of your post is open to debate.
By saying that "the rights you have are those you can successfully assert" implies that the strong have more rights than the weak, the wealthy more than the poor, and the armed more than the unarmed. Is it therefore government's duty to level those rights so unjustly held?
I do support the idea that the strong possess more rights than the weak, the wealth more than the poor and the armed more than the unarmed. This is simply a fact. As for it being the government’s responsibility to level the “unjustly held” rights, I’m not certain that it is solely the government’s responsibility. One might suggest that the established government acts as a convenient tool to alter rights but I could imagine other tools such as economic pressures, cultural pressures (various spiritual beliefs) and’ simply’ installing a new government. I also disagree that rights held or obtained by means not available to some or most of a population are somehow “unjust”. That’s a deep can of worms indeed and will require some thought before I respond.
The founding fathers established no rights. The U.S. Constitution as passed does not establish rights. The preamble ("We the people . . .") make no reference to rights. The purpose of the constitution is establish the form and powers of government, not to grant rights. The "Bill of Rights" does not grant rights, but more clearly defines the limits of Government ("Congress shall make no law . . ."). In fact, "we the people" chose as a group to relinquish some rights for the purpose of establishing a government.
The founding fathers established cultural norms via the constitution. It was intended to be a manual of operating instructions for the proposed government but imbedded in it and the accompanying documents you mentioned was a vision of culture. And as I noted in my original piece, laws flow from culture. Thus the established government was formed of a culture and it ‘created’ rights in order to establish a more perfect union as laws were passed. I think of it as an indirect effort. It might also be described in this manner: the shadow cast by the original documents implies certain freedoms/rights be granted/protected by the established government.
The common law is bound to change, but it changes because it is the body of all decision made by the courts and similar tribunals. Furthermore, in this country the common law is largely supplanted by statutory law.
I agree. Common law is set aside by legislation or by court rulings. I also agree that common law changes for the reasons you cite in addition to the changing body of knowledge at the courts disposal. However, it remain law and enforceable; thus a tool for dealing with nuisance issues (which are often environmental in nature).
You are free to support support legislation further abridging property rights in the name of the common good. But, such law cannot and does not change the inherent rights in property.
I sincerely doubt I’ll change your mind on this and thus I’ll allow my previous post to remain my statement on the topic.
Thanks so much for responding in a civil and thoughtful manner. I greatly appreciate your time and thoughtful response to my post.
Respectfully,
Roy Gothie
Post a Comment
<< Home