The high cost of busybodies: Part II

townhall.com ^ | 12/03/03 | Thomas Sowell

[kattracks]

A reader wrote recently about his father, who has been a farmer, but is now ready to retire. His father figured on selling his land to get some money for his golden retirement years. But he found that he cannot get anywhere near the land's market value because busybodies have passed laws that destroy most of that value by restricting the sale of farmland.

The rationale for such laws is "preserving farmland." Think about it. Two of our biggest problems today are obesity and agricultural surpluses. The last thing we need to do is keep farmland from being sold to those who want to use it to build housing, businesses or other things.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the notion that farmland needs to be preserved in order to serve some great national interest, the Constitution of the United States says that private property cannot be taken by the government without just compensation.

When the government destroys half the value of someone's property, that is the same thing economically as taking half of that property. But, because the farmer is left owning all his land, judges have let politicians get away with essentially confiscating much of its value without having to pay any compensation.

People who lead crusades to preserve farmland usually know little about farming and less about economics. Yet they think that they have a right to prevent other people from making mutually agreeable transactions, when that goes against the fetishes of third parties.

Busybodies may flatter themselves that they are wiser or nobler than others -- which is perhaps the biggest benefit from being a busybody -- but the Constitution of the United States says that all citizens are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, people who want to wring their hands about farmlands or wetlands, or about some obscure toad or snake, have no more rights than people who don't care two cents about such things. It is hard for those who have presumptions of being the morally anointed to accept that, but that is what the Constitution says.

Unfortunately, too many judges are ready to fudge or fake what the Constitution says because they too share the vision of the anointed. So they downgrade property rights and let third parties impose their pet notions on others, using the power of government to violate the rights of those who do not agree with them.

What makes a lot of the talk about "preserving" or "saving" farmland or other things as phony as a three-dollar bill is that the real agenda is often very different -- namely, keeping out people who do not have the income or the inclination to share the lifestyle of the anointed.

The real reason for preventing farmland from being sold to those who might build housing on it is that the people who live in that housing might not be as upscale as those already living nearby. Developers -- heaven forbid -- might build apartments or townhouses in a community where people live in single-family homes.

In other words, developers might build some of that "affordable housing" that some people talk so much about and do so much to prevent.

The rationale for laws forbidding farmers from selling their land to whoever wants to buy it is that existing residents have a right to "preserve the character" of "our community." But these lofty words are lying words.

Only sloppy thinking allows sloppy words to pass muster. There is no such thing as "our community." Nobody owns the whole community. Each individual owns his or her own property -- and other individuals have the same right to own or sell their own property.

If the busybodies want to put their money where their mouth is, they can buy up the farmland themselves and then they can legitimately prevent anybody from building anything on it. But verbal sleight-of-hand is no justification for denying others the same rights that they claim for themselves.

If there were some way to add up all the costs imposed by busybodies -- on everyone from farmers to people wanting organ transplants -- it would probably be greater than the national debt.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Thomas Sowell | Read Sowell's biography

[agitator]

As usual, the author is missing an important point. The "developer" he's referring to is almost never a private citizen, it's almost always a corporation or other artificial entity whieh by nature, exists and does business at the pleasure of the people and by extension, their government. While a private citizen has a natural right to do with his property as he wishes, a commercial entity does not. This confusion is both the reason private property is no longer held in the regard it once was and is its own result.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[SierraWasp]

Man oh man! I'm sorry to have to disagree with your premise, but I have to!!!

Haven't you ever heard of a "Private Corp" or a "Family Corp?" Nobody, or nothing is ever limited in doing legitimate business in this nation as long as they follow the law! You're also dead wrong in reality if you really believe a private citizen has a natural right to DO with his property as he wishes!

This article is absolutely correct in EVERY detail! No exceptions! Your comment smacks of the worst kind of Socialistic thinking and as a former elected official most highly involved in "Land Use" regulation there is, I certainly hope you disabuse yourself of these notions as they don't fit the situation and are utterly incorrect.

I'm not challenging you personally, just your mistaken notions. Please don't take offense as I don't even know you, or why you have reached these erroneous conclusions.

The article is profoundly and precisely appropos in every respect, especially in CA!!!

[SierraWasp]

No! Not quite! Can somebody help explain the devastating consequences of Land trusts and conservancies to Tony? I'm right in the middle of something here and don't have time right now.

[The Westerner]

I don't feel like it. This idea of a farmer unable to sell his own property after years of building up its value is too depressing. Like cockroaches or ants that live in the walls, they just keep crawling out all around us, stealing private property under the stealth justification of do-goodism. Sorry, I just can't see the good of cockroaches.

[The Westerner]

Do-goodism aka totalitarianism, statism, facism, communism, socialism.

[farmfriend]

Can somebody help explain the devastating consequences of Land trusts and conservancies to Tony?

Somebody we know wrote a whole book dealing with this stuff.

There are some great threads on FR as well.

BIG GREEN : Inside the Nature Conservancy Nonprofit Land Bank Amasses Billions

Environmentalists Organizations Exposed

And my personal favorite, please pay attention to the wonderful posts by our own Carry_Okie who has some wonderful photographic "evidence" on this thread.
Water rights fight--farmer regrets selling to an open space trust

[farmfriend]

Take heart Waspman, Agitator lives in the north east. He is moving to Wyoming though and will learn quickly. You would think his association with Countrydummy would have taught him already.

[Old Professer]

While a private citizen has a natural right to do with his property as he wishes, a commercial entity does not.

How so?

[agitator]

A commercial entity only exists at the pleasure of the people - by and through their government. A commercial entity is not born with natural rights conveyed by the diety of your choice, it is created with the permission of the people. A commercial entity like a corporation is a grant of limited liability to its officers, employees, and stockholders - nobody has a natural right to limited liability. In the case of the commercial entities, the people giveth and the people can regulate. Make no mistake, to what extent the people regulate is entirely another issue - but commercial or other "artificial persons" or entities have no "rights" rather they have authorities, and the people are responsible for extending, withdrawing, or not extending those authorities.

The idea that commercial entities like corporations have "rights" is legal sophistry. Just because what an "artificial person" (i.e., corporation) does relative to property it owns can be regulated does not mean that similar regulation can extend to a "natural person" acting as a private citizen.

When Americans don't understand the difference between "natural persons" with God-given rights to private property recognized by a Constitution, and "artificial persons" whose authorities to property only exist to the extent the people are willing to authorize, it becomes possible to regulate a natural person with his property as if it were an artificial person.

In the case at hand, if the farmer were to chop up his land into parcels himself, put the infrastructure in himself, build the houses on the lots himself, etc., hey, it's private property, it's being developed by a private citizen, in the absence of any demonstrable damages to anyone else, govt has nothing to say about it. If the farmer wants to sell the land to Big Giant Developer, Inc., that's another story if BGD Inc. is prohibited from doing what it wants by govt. The farmer can't complain when he can't sell his property at the price a commercial developer would pay him if the commercial developer only exists because the people say it can. He has every right to sell it to another guy who is not an artificial entity.

Rights come with responsibilities and by definition, artificial persons have no rights, only permission. Unfortunately, everybody in this country wants their cake and to eat it too. They want private property rights but they want limited liablility. Or, they forget the distinction between who has rights and who has only permission and accept the position of the artificial person as the natural state of affairs and then wonder why some clueless bureaucrat (or clueless judge) isn't respecting the rights they should have.

[agitator]

With all due respect, I think you need to do some more homework. A Trust is a private contract. When it occurs between private citizens, govt has nothing to say about it. See the Clinton Legal Defense TRUST (not Fund, Trust.) A contract between private citizens does not constitute an artificial entity and a trust relationship does not rely on govt for its existence. On the other hand, any child of govt is responsible to its parent. There are trusts and then there are trusts...

Also see the previous post :)

[SierraWasp]

Thank you for the smiley face. I'm sure if I took the time to respond to your scenarios in a totally convincing manner, you'd hold to the same opinions. Even if you're a land use lawyer, you're offering "legal opinions" and theories that are still unsettled law. (at least in my state)

So I'm just gonna let go at this point as my wide ranging experience in the realities still tells me your mistaken. If farmfriend says you're a friend of CountryDummy's, you certainly must be a good person! (grin)

[farmfriend]

Agitator operates radio free republic and the associated chat room.