Replies

You know, this reminds me of a statement I read recently (cant remember where). "...They are trying to turn or country into a museum..."

I fully understand the interest in history. I am an avid student of history and think it is important to know where you’ve been and where you came from to know where you’re going. Very few things intrigue me more than discovering lost links to our past or some "forgotten" history. However, I do have a problem with the single-mindedness of academics in their pursuit of intellectual knowledge. They sincerely wish to turn this planet into a MUSEUM so that they may study whatever it is that interests them undisturbed and unopposed. Its almost as if they believe that everything that came before now is more important than what will be or could be or what exists now is more important than what may exist.

You just have to let some things go for the sake of today and tomorrow. Not ALL things can be let go of course (freedom, liberty, natural rights, etc) the livelihood of a families farm is a bit more important than studying some old structures. A persons property rights and by extension his freedom is more important than every historical site on the planet.

If you feel you MUST see these buried treasures, deal with the property owner in good faith. Either negotiate to BUY his land or appeal to his "good will" to let you use it for a while. If the owner refuses, the only thing you need to understand is that YOUR desires DO NOT outweigh his. You are NOT morally bound to take what is his because he doesn’t "understand" the "importance" of your desire.

The reason we have property rights is because EVERYONE has their own desires and EVERYONE thinks their desires are more important or nobler than others. These rights erect a "wall" that protects the weak from the strong. BY weak I do not mean poor and strong does not mean rich. An army of the poor is much stronger than a rich landowner. Oppressive government is stronger than a poor or rich land owner. A poor or rich man who is physically strong can take the property from a physically weak poor or rich landowner. Property rights stop this from happening. Property rights do not take desires into account nor should they.

You just have to let some things go for the sake of today and tomorrow.

Quite so. No reason why we can't just plow up say, the Gettysburg Battlefield, and grow potatoes there, right? After all, the world requires its french fries.

Much depends on the value of the things you're letting go, I'd say.

England does not have the explicit prohibition from our Constitution that private property may not be taken "without just compensation." However, the sense of fairness in American law is borrowed from English law.

I thoroughly agree that the farmers should not be prevented from using their own land, without just compensation. However, this site seems to be so impressive, and so capable of expanding our knowledge of our past, that the government should pony up, pay the farmers, and then excavate this site with all possible skill.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Double Crossing at the Rio Grande," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.