The End of Private Property - What Now?

What now? (Part I – Consequences)

“And just when will the revolution actually start now?” That was the first question my wife had when I told her of the insane 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court announced yesterday, concerning the power of government to seize private property.[1] And it is a valid question. This morning, a raft of stories about some of the 10,000 “eminent domain” actions in progress across the former republican union popped up on various web news-sites and newspaper sites.

As many people have pointed out, the United States Constitution, and virtually all institutions of free nations, are built on a solid bedrock of establishing the principle of ownership of property. My recent article on nation-building[2] listed this as the number 2 priority, right after removing government’s power to harm its members or neighbors:

“Establish ownership of property (institutionalize property). Establish and enforce ownership by individuals of all possible resources, including land, structures, water, air, airspace, broadcasting bands (frequencies), ideas, and rights to provide specified services to specific persons or in specific locations for specific purposes. English common law developed to provide this institutionalization of property, and evolved by hard knocks to ensure that resources (assets) held informally or put to use were recognized as property. The institution of property, free from the whims of rulers, invaders, and envious neighbors is essential to create a free society.”

Obviously, this Supreme Court decision, for those in states without very solid protections in their own constitutions against eminent domain, has just destroyed that bulwark of freedom. When coupled with the affirmation (and expansion) of the 1942 case which expands the “commerce clause” to anything Congress wishes to consider “interstate commerce” in the medical cannabis case ruling[3] several weeks ago and Monday’s ruling on a California property rights case[4], it creates a situation in which that “line in the sand” that indicates the final destruction of the Republic has been crossed. Hence my wife’s question.

Indeed, we are only beginning to be able to examine the consequences of this ruling, although one of the four dissenting justices (O’Connor) wrote:

“Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded — i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public — in the process. To reason, as the court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

The very evil of this ruling can be seen by looking at the very case on which it was made, and hundreds of other cases now pending across the nation, and sure to be prosecuted with vigor based on this ruling (just as Federal agents in California are even now rounding up “criminals” after the medical cannabis ruling and most recent failure by Congress to rectify the situation).

But we have a very real, very horrific example in today’s news of exactly what this decision will ultimately lead to, titled by one writer as “Holocaust in Zimbabwe.”[5] In that poor nation, its ruler, the power-mad Robert Mugabe, has ordered the demolition of the shacks and gardens of somewhere between 300,000 and one million of its poorest citizens, sending them homeless to live in the streets, or in some cases, burying them or their children in the rubble of their homes; and intends to do the same thing to the houses of people violating zoning ordinances by having offices or workshops in their homes.

“Oh, that can’t happen here!” How often have we heard those words? Yet, it may happen here sooner than later, and in the very town whose tyrannical rulers brought this to the Court in the first place. A number of people in the Fort Trumball area of New London, Connecticut, have said that they will continue to resist the theft of their homes. And so, one day soon, armed police, probably with SWAT teams, handcuffs, battering rams and all the other paraphernalia of dictatorship, will show up on the few remaining doorsteps of the neighborhood (all of the homes which once surrounded those few people who fought in the courts have been demolished and the area apparently looks like Potsdammer Platz in 1946) to assault and drag away, among others, an 81-year-old woman from the only home she has ever had. And no doubt, the blue-clad thugs of the City of New London will be backed up by the armed might of the Connecticut State Police and probably even a variety of federal agency goons.

They probably won’t make her and the other surviving remnants of the community actually live in the streets; they’ll get nice warm jail cells for a while, at least, and when (months or years later) the checks get cut, they’ll theoretically be able to buy new homes – or at least new places to live. But such an eventual outcome does not excuse the criminal (or at least immoral) act of stealing in the first place, nor the mistreatment of the people victims of this theft.

As the editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader stated on Friday[6]: “In essence, all land in the United States is now state-owned.” No different than Communist China, Communist Cuba, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, or ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia: the thugs have won.

Some of the immediate impacts have already been discussed on radio, in discussion groups, on blogs, etc.:

1. Churches are in great risk. Religious organizations do not pay property taxes, but now, under the premise that “economic development” = “government revenue enhancement,” this will encourage local governments to exercise eminent domain (i.e., steal) on church properties (and other tax-exempt properties) in order to sell them to new owners for commercial purposes and therefore be able to add them to the tax rolls.

2. Especially in California, with Proposition 13, and other locations where property tax valuations are frozen as long as the residence is not sold, it will be possible (and eminently logical) to condemn the properties, pay the current market value to the owners, then allow them to buy back their property at the same price they just sold it for – a price that now forms the baseline for property tax appraisals and levies: in some cases in California, this apparently would instantly increase property tax generated from the property by five times or more. Or the city/county could simply sell their new property to whomever they would, leaving the old owner out in the cold (albeit with a nice check).

3. The use of eminent domain by unscrupulous “big-box store” chains and opportunistic and tyrannical “economic development” bureaucrats and their schills in city and county councils is well-known, especially in places like the Front Range Metroplex of Colorado, and will see rapid expansion, now that the American Planning Society, Municipal League, and other government lobbying groups have this victory. And to that we can add plans to demolish entire neighborhoods for the sake of constructing vast sports temples in New York, DC, and other places: mixing “bread and circuses” with welfare to the rich (sports owners and players) and vast profits in the form of taxes for cities and counties.

4. Various cities and counties and states can be expected to become a lot more aggressive, and the courts much more biased, in various cases where there is some question as to whether the intended use is indeed “public,” as in dozens of cases regarding easements for pipelines, power facilities (such as power windmills and solar systems), and streets, parking, etc. Abuse will grow significantly.

I don’t have the imagination to come up with some other results of this catastrophic decision, but I can be sure that “innovative” tyrants and their sycophants will use their imaginations. But I am reminded of what newly-confirmed Federal Circuit Court Judge, then-California Supreme Court Justice, Janice Rogers Brown wrote in dissent to the California case I mentioned earlier: "Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she wrote. "Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves, it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government." Today, just months later, her words ring true.

As with the medical cannabis decision, there are those who will immediately expect the legislature or the executive to come to their rescue. Such hopes will be no more realized than the expectation that such intervention would save Terry Schiavo’s life several months ago. For example, Brown’s opinion was used by some senators in opposing her recent elevation to a federal appeals court: she is “too radical.”

So what now? What do we do?

I have already received e-mail urging me to participate in a form of recall petitions against this Gang of Five (John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer), and actually, I would include the sixth, Scalia, who filed a concurring opinion in the medical cannabis case, as well. The usual call, to “Support President Bush” and get in more conservative justices when (whenever) one or two retire, has inevitably been made. Other ideas as well will be bandied about in the next days. In my second part of this article, I’ll look at some alternative actions.

FYI: The three court cases are:

San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 04-340

Kelo v. New London, 04-108

Ashcroft, et al. v. Raich, et al. 03-1454

---

[1] NEW news story reference

[2] Baker’s Dozen ™ Tips on Rebuilding Disfunctional Societys, http://libertys-outpost.blogspot.com/, 9 Jun 2005

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/

[4] http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050620/D8ARHDE00.html: The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property cannot count on federal courts for help. In Monday's decision, the justices ruled against a historic San Francisco hotel that wanted to convert rooms - previously designated for permanent residents - to accommodate tourists. The city had restrictions on hotel changes, as part of an ordinance intended to preserve housing for the poor, disabled and elderly. When the San Remo Hotel was ordered to pay $567,000, it sued in state court and narrowly lost at the California Supreme Court in 2002. There were no harsh words in Monday's 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that found the 62-room hotel could not pursue a federal case because state courts had already addressed all the issues. "This is a big victory for local governments," said Nicole Garnett, a Notre Dame law professor.

[5] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44963

[6] http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56728

Interesting Things about Bills of Rights

I'm always having folks point me to new things on-line, and this above site is courtesy of Sunni (http://www.endervidualism.com/salon/web/w0605.htm) and is of considerable interest, because it shows a willingness to keep minor differences in philosophy from interfering with useful cooperative efforts. One thing of interest I noticed was the list of "Documents Which Encompass Human Rights" and their disclaimer: "Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply agreement with the entire document. These are just examples of documents that recognize individual rights." They list six.

I of course have a certain fondness for the United States' Bill of Rights (US-BOR) (which tops the list) - due to ancestry, raising, my own free acceptance of an obligation to defend and protect it, and my day-to-day life under its protections, but I am readily willing to admit that it has its flaws. My state's (South Dakota's) Bill of Right [sic] is better: more specific, more forthright and in keeping with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence itself, although it shares some flaws with the US version. These include no enforcement mechanism except the courts (what a laughable concept THAT is, in view of 220+ years of history), the right to keep and bear arms, and (in SD's case, only) the statement of the inherent right of the people to reform or abolish the government. It also resides within the context of the entire Constitution, and as recent court decisions have again reminded us, that venerable document contains loopholes large enough (sadly) to drive an entire PanzerArmee through. The other documents I look on with decreasing pleasure: starting with the next oldest, the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" (DRMC), which you can find at (http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html) This little piece of statist disinformation, with its meandering about "law" and "nation" and "society" is far worse than (and three times as long as) the US-BOR (especially its morbid fascination with "law"). While no more followed by successive French governments that the BOR is by the present American government branches, is far more able to be subverted (as those same French governments have demonstrated time and again). Its Gallic influence is seen in the current European Union's failed constitution.

It is not all bad, of course, and has some definite flairs in places, as in Article 4:"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. "

However, this is immediately offset by the very next article: "5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law."Which is the measure? Persons or society? If it said, "Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to others" it would be consistent with itself, at least. The last phrase of the second sentence - at first I thought it had no redeeming features at all, but maybe if it said, "No one may be forced to do anything." it might make sense.

Oh, and no right to keep and bear arms or to replace the government.

The next is the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." (UDHR) Again, it is easy to see the influence of the French document in it, as well as to see its influence on the EU. And again, it sounds very pretty, but has no enforcement except a very oblique reference in the preamble: "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law," - but we know how much good THAT has done. But as you read through its THIRTY articles (as compared to 17 in the DRHC and 10 in the US-BOR), you find that what the UN, even in 1948, considered "rights" sound like excuses for the existence of the state and its power: "social security" is a right; "food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" are rights, "employment" is a right. (It is very interesting, though, in light of the worldwide clamor over same-sex marriage, to note that this document clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." (Article 16) There might be in there a right to plural marriages, but not to homosexual ones.) And some of the so-called "rights" are anything BUT rights: the most prominent one is in Article 26: "Elementary education shall be compulsory." And as you might imagine, no right to keep and bear arms. All in all, a worthless piece of paper, as germane to world history in the past 57 years as the location of Alexander's tomb.

The next is the 1982 "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" found at (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter). It starts out with two sick jokes to anyone who knows governments and Canada in the last 25 years. "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." - It may have been founded upon God, but the effort in the last quarter century has been to disassociate itself from God as much as possible - especially the God of the Anglican and Roman Catholic traditions of its founders. The next joke is worse, though (and the EU closely followed this in their botched attempt at a bill of rights): "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In other words, folks, don't bother with the rest of it: "reasonable limits" and "demonstrations justification" are defined by either a one-vote majority in Commons or a one-vote majority of appointees to the High Bench. There ARE no freedoms and rights except as the powers-that-be are willing to let people have. And of course, there are no provisions for enforcement. And we are up to 34 Articles, although admittedly several of the articles deal with the unique English-French "multicultural" of Canada. At least (although they are meaningless, as I said) there are a few familiar rights that we south of the border recognize, such as banning self-incriminating and double-jeopardy. But no right to keep and bear arms, as Canadians are learning right now.

The last two documents listed are "The Australian Privacy Charter" and the "World Passport" - both of which are dream documents and about as applicable to real life as the EU's dead constitution, so I won't go into any detail. The Australian thing has at least one good article though: "People should have the option of not identifying themselves when entering transactions." Of course it is weasely "should" is not the same as saying: "No person shall be forced, under penalty of law, to identify themselves when entering transactions." If you are curious, go to: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/PrivacyCharter.html. Please note, Australia HAS NO "Bill of Rights" except for tenuous claims to the old British one from 1688, because they are in allegiance to H.M. Queen Elizabeth, second of that name.

The "World Passport" (http://www.worldgovernment.org/docpass.html) is my opinion is a piece of garbage and does not belong in the links at all. It purports to support the right of free travel around the world, but that is a crock, to put it mildly. Whether your "papers" (as in "May I see your papers, please, comrade.") are issued by a wanna-be world government or a national government or a local dog-catcher/tyrant - they are still an affront to human liberty and dignity and deserve to be treated like any other attempt at slavery. Freedom to travel has to apply to anyone with or without papers or it is meaningless, in the long term (and often in the very short term, as well - try catching a plane in the USA today.) It is also, apparently, something of a scam, like International Drivers Licenses (not International Driving Permits) and claims that citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) will make the IRS back off.

The point is, there is not YET (and probably won't ever be) a "perfect" Bill of Rights, and attempts to define more and more rights specifically lead to all kinds of garbage. Bills of rights exist to limit the powers of government, NOT to establish or "give" rights to people, so maybe the entire concept of bills of rights is flawed. Maybe it would have been better if the Founding Fathers had entitled this "PROHIBITIONS ON ANY GOVERNMENT" and (of course) provided a mechanism for enforcement. But I fear that any human government beyond that of a small, voluntary membership (like that of a church congregation) is doomed to eventually try to take away every right - and this kind of thing just facilitiates that.

New Baker's Dozen: Rebuilding Nations

This was first published at www.thepriceofliberty.org

Baker’s Dozen ™ Tips for Rebuilding Disfunctional Societies
With thanks to Quintin Langley for the original idea.

Massive invasions to “liberate” nations, even when coupled with massive foreign aid programs, voting schemes, and generous pensions for redundant politicians and military dictators, have been proven to be inadequate for creating truly human societies. (For example, it has been sixty years now since most of Europe was liberated from Nazi tyranny, and they STILL can’t get it right.) Therefore, these tips to create a functional and human society are provided for your use. WARNING: Avoid so-called “professional” individuals and groups, especially those who claim vast experience in nation-building (or re-building) and those with short acronyms or abbreviations like “UN”, “USA”, or “CPSU.”
While these tasks are listed in general order in which they should be accomplished, it is not always necessary to complete one task before proceeding to the next.

Remove or limit the ability of organizations (including “states” or “governments”) to harm their members (clients/citizens/etc.) and their neighbors. “De jure” limits seldom work unless “de facto” limits are already in place. In some cases, this may require five to ninety years to accomplish. Although “disarmament” is claimed by many to be the only way of removing or limiting this, history has shown that disarmament works, at best, for a very limited time; the time-proven method of limiting the ability to cause harm is to ensure that neighbors and citizens are adequately armed and capable of using those arms effectively.

Establish ownership of property (institutionalize property). Establish and enforce ownership by individuals of all possible resources, including land, structures, water, air, airspace, broadcasting bands (frequencies), ideas, and rights to provide specified services to specific persons or in specific locations for specific purposes. English common law developed to provide this institutionalization of property, and evolved by hard knocks to ensure that resources (assets) held informally or put to use were recognized as property. The institution of property, free from the whims of rulers, invaders, and envious neighbors is essential to create a free society.

Establish methods of resolving disputes which do not involve immediate use of weaponry or a ruling by a “wise man” from a throne. Solomon was a rarity: one in several hundred billion. Have several methods, at least somewhat independent. If it turns out that violence is sometimes necessary to resolve an otherwise insoluble dispute, make sure that obvious physical and mental differences are balanced.

Diversify education. Schools, formal or informal, are the basis of the flow of information required for a society to function. Turning schools into instruments of government, at ANY level (local, regional, national) ultimately destroys free speech AND the economy, as the aims of government are inexorably opposed to the goals of proper education: learning to communicate and share information. Education must be free and separate from the state, just as religion must be, and for most of the same reasons. Priority must be given to primary schools: higher education will follow naturally. No person, organization, or institution should have a monopoly on education anywhere, anytime.

Eliminate corruption at all levels, in both the “public” and “private” sectors. Under the table payments are damaging to society and the economy. Living on tips, whether you are a waiter, a soldier, or a politician, is corrosive and reduces or eliminates the feedback necessary for a market economy AND a free society. If the full price of the goods or services provided is not clear and up-front, inefficiency is far above tolerable levels.

Establish commonly accepted standards. This is a broad area, because it includes everything from commonly accepted standards for weight, length, and other physical measurements to commonly acceptable standards for proper behavior of children, teens, military personnel (on- and off-duty), business-owners, employers, employees, and media, among others.

Provide (as much as possible) all goods and services by private, voluntary actions. Do not attempt to allocate any goods or services by elections, appointed officials, or redistribution of stolen goods.

Eliminate (as much as possible) forced payments and forced services. This amounts, in fact, to an elimination of taxes. Make voluntary contributions the normal way of providing for needs which affect a large segment of society or for services which cannot be done by a free market. Once this is done, it doesn’t matter what you call the political leaders.

Devolve power. While a “strong man” or “man on a horse” may temporarily solve some problems, in anything but the very short term they create more problems than they ever solve. Whatever political power exists, whatever power to enforce laws, defend against aggression, or implement new laws or enforcement, must be divided as much as possible, both geographically and culturally (that is, by segments of society such as classes, ethnic groups, religious affiliations, or other divisions). In particular, internal defense against aggression (internal “police” powers) and external defense against aggression (“military” powers) must be kept separate, if at all possible with completely different geographic jurisdictions.

Encourage learning and education outside the state or country or society being “built.” Learning that there is a way of doing things outside your clan, town, county, people or nation, even if you don’t LIKE the other ways of doing things, matures you amazingly. Apply this principle even to those people who just can’t seem to understand that they are not supposed to attack people, control them, or be rude: whether this education is done by banishment or putting them in Coventry is really a moot point, as long as the rest of the population is safe from them.

Separate civic (ceremonial) and administrative (working) roles for government at all levels. No one needs any power whatsoever to welcome soldiers home, visitors to town, dedicate buildings, cry with the survivors, raise money to help the injured, or kiss babies.

Encourage preachers. Not “religious leaders” (whatever they may be called) but preachers – those teaching whatever doctrine they wish to proclaim, calling people in the public eye to account for their actions, urging people to live moral (or even immoral) lives, and reminding people there is something beyond society and the state.

Do it in writing. Living constitutions stink worse than the “dead” written word.

Version 1.1. This initial list may be amended in the future; your comments are appreciated and will be incorporated in future editions.
© 2005, Information Incorporated

Shadow Governments?

Shadow government? An idea for the United States

For decades, if not centuries, Britain's parliamentary government has featured an unusual idea - that the opposition party in government should form a "shadow government" featuring "shadow ministers" and even shadow ministerial staffs. This allows the opposition to do several things, including assign responsibility for dealing with issues, prepare for an eventual accession to power, and provide a ready source of commentary to the press and elsewhere on specific issues and fields of concern. The closest thing the US has had to this concept has been the minority leaders and their subordinates (whips, etc.) in the various legislative houses. But since ministries (in the UK) are executive branch departments in the US, there had seldom been anything similar. The closest is the Democrat or GOP spokesman chosen to rebut the now traditional Saturday broadcast by the sitting president.

Of course, since there is much to argue for the fact that, philosophical differences apart, there is little if anything in actual RESULTS to distinguish between the two predominant, and old, parties, in the US, such a shadow administration is, at best, a token.

However, for the Libertarian Party, well outside the informal cartel of government power in DC and all fifty state capitols, the idea of a shadow government offers some potential, indeed.

Modern American government is huge. Even if a single Libertarian party member were able to respond as would be desirable to every pronouncement by a state cabinet member or department head, there is not enough time in the day (especially for volunteers). The same thing can be said of key legislative committee chairs, again at both the state and federal level. However, the appointment (or even, within the party, election) of shadow "secretaries" and shadow "chairs" of key departments and committees would allow for specialization AND time to respond in a given area of interest, as well as a certain legitimacy: "Today, Libertarian shadow Secretary of Defense John Smith condemned Secretary Rumsfeld's call for 50,000 more troops in Iraq" has a better ring than "Libertarian activist and spokesman John Smith condemned..." This will also encourage specialization and additional thought about specific political and governmental problems, which apply both to political/election efforts and to non-political libertarian efforts. For example, a series of web or telephone conferences between the fifty state shadow Attorneys General about how to respond to new mandates on Drivers Licenses would produce some very valuable ideas and information, as well as contacts and possibly, media attention. It would encourage cooperation in various efforts, including ballot initiatives, voter registration drives, and nonpolitical activities such as monetary alternatives and personal defense initiatives.

In addition, by appointing such shadow cabinet/chair positions several years in advance of elections, the opportunities for public speaking and attention in the media would increase. If shadow appointments to all legislative seats were done two years in advance, it would be a way of determining candidates for the elected office well in advance, AND give some more credence to their campaign. Jana Jones, appointed in 2006 as the Libertarian Party shadow County Commission Chair, who has been writing letters to the editor, commentaries, and making press releases for almost a year and a half prior to formally announcing she will run AGAINST the current Democratic Chair, has some visibility (and knowledge) that would otherwise not be there.

As liberty continues to be eroded away at the same rate as soil washing away from a freshly plowed field in Iowa during a cloud-burst, the existence of shadow government officials at all levels may be a valuable survival tool which will keep the present precarious state of affairs from being replaced by some kind of outright dictatorship (military or otherwise). This is really NOT a new idea: the pre-Revolutionary Committees of Correspondence in the Thirteen Colonies were very much shadow governments, and the Continental Congress, itself much a product of those committees, was an illegal or at least extra-governmental organization in the eyes of the Crown and the Crown's governments in the Colonies.

This is not offered as a panacea or as anything but yet another tool to use in the cause of liberty; one which will serve both political and non-political efforts.

If you are interested in this concept and wish to explore it, please (1) share this with other libertarians, (2) respond to this web-site with your ideas, comments, and encouragement, and (3) begin forming your own LOCAL shadow government. Start with your town, housing association, school board, or county.