No land ownership - no freedom

by K. Parker Stoops

In the process of gathering signatures for the petition to repeal the Critical Areas ordinance, I have had some amazing discussions with landowners here in Joyce. 

One thing that has absolutely astounded me is that many people don't realize the significance that property rights carry in the bigger picture of life. I've been told things like, "You're probably right, but I don't have time or energy to get involved in political stuff", or "What's the big deal? I don't mind obeying a few rules if it'll save the salmon". 

Folks, this is not about salmon, any more than wrecking the timber industry was about saving the spotted owl. What this is about, is who will make the crucial decisions concerning where you live, what you do, and whether you are allowed to pursue a lifestyle you believe in.

In America, land ownership is the basis of individual freedoms. You and I have worked hard for our land, but even further, our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are meaningless without the right to own it. 

No way, you say? Yes, my friends, this is an inescapable fact, which just the slightest amount of reasoning will lead you to as the night follows the day.

The things that you need to maintain life originate with land, and if you have no land, or access to the products of land, you will perish.

Food, water, shelter - let's start with those. Where does food come from? Right. Water, either rain falls on land or underground water is percolated through land, from whence it is collected and sometimes filtered and pushed through pipes for the consumption of your tiny body.

Shelter, that's fairly self-explanatory: somebody, somewhere, extracted from their land the necessary materials to build your house (and your car, and your cold beer, and . well, you get the idea). 

Our very existence depends on land and the production that land makes possible, and if my enemies control all the land, I'm toast. Who are my enemies? Well, right off the bat, those who wish to take my land.

To paraphrase an idea developed by Ludwig von Mises, there are two ways for a socialist government to take control of private property. One is by conquest, as practiced when the Soviet nations grab up a new territory. Send a platoon of soldiers onto a farm, kill or drive off the most vigorous of the inhabitants, and force the rest into slave labor. This farm, and indeed all property, is then managed by one or more agencies of the government, whose claim to the land goes undisputed because the previous owners are dead or jailed or chained to a millstone.

The other way, which our commissioners and their staff seem to have chosen, is to reduce the status of landowners to "nominal possessors". In this scenario, the government promises to defend the "owner's" occupation of the land against other civilians, but dictates when, why, and how the land can be used or "sold" (the land itself is not sold, of course, merely the government-defended right of occupancy). This second method has some sales features when compared to the first, in that it can be achieved more or less peaceably, and it presents the opportunity to tax the possessors within an inch of their life, to finance the expansion of
the scheme. But it also has some pitfalls, which include these two: it must be done slowly, and it leaves its opposition alive and kicking until the bitter end.

 The latter may end up being its fatal flaw, IF, and only if, those of us who own property resolve to reject this socialist strategy whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. To reduce the matter to very simple terms: if I was your neighbor, would it be okay for me to steal your land by threat of force? What if two, or ten, or fifty of us, conspired to drive you from your lawful property? What if we had the best of intentions, and made persuasive speeches about how this was all for the benefit of society, and your own good as well? What if we got crooked judges to twist the laws onto our side?

If the moral concept of right and wrong somehow does not apply to property rights, and the courts of our county continue to condone the crimes committed by the planning department, then we will end up with departmental staff controlling every acre. That's what they're steering us toward. 

Choose one or the other, because in the long run there is no middle course. If you won't fight the Critical Areas ordinance, don't come crying to me about infringements of the freedom of the press, or the right to keep and bear arms, or relief from higher taxes, because private ownership of land is the foundation that upholds those things. Without it, none of them has a prayer.

Speaking only for himself,
K. Parker Stoops