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

[SierraWasp]

"I was just thinking they do exactly as the author proposes."

You oughta e-mail him and ask him! He's probably already written something on the subject that is every bit as outstanding as this short piece.

My hunch is that he probably wasn't talking about organizations, but individuals as he is usually much more concerned with individual rights, than so-called "group rights" that I don't think he thinks even exist!

I read the thread and enjoyed the other comments you made. I've fought these things so long and hard that I tend to get frustrated easily by comments like your initial one. Sorry 'bout that.

[SierraWasp]

"A commercial entity only exists at the pleasure of the people - by and through their government."

I'm probably gonna REALLY regret this, but... beins he runs "radio free republic's" chat room, then he's employed by a "Not-for-profit" corportation, "a commercial entity" that "only exists at the pleasure of the people - by and through their government," right?

"Not-for-profit" does not make it an entity that can't deal in commercial activity, just profit making activity. So that means that FR,LLC, if it bought real property would not have the same inherint bundle of rights as any CA individual, according to his interpretation, because entities are second class citizens as compared to natural born people type CA citizens... Hmmmmmmmm... I don't think so!!!

[cornelis]

fyi

[agitator]

I'll make a few brief points, it's been a long day and it's late. When I refer to the rights of natural persons and authority granted to artificial entities, I'm speaking in terms of essential principles, not from a phony premise set up by legal sophists. Given sufficient time and enough ignorance (with a helpful dose of stare decisis pushed along by dicta), lawyers and judges can legally justify *anything.*

When a private citizen acts in his private capacity and subjects himself to the full measure of liability for his actions he can be said to be in possession of all of the rights endowed upon him by his Creator. Can the character of authorities of a any creature of the state be said to be of the same class as rights endowed upon a man by the Creator of man?

Any entity created under authority of the state is *by definition* a second class "citizen." More accurately, it is an "artificial person" and cannot possibly have the same rights as a "natural person." It may be granted authorities (permission from the state) under prescribed circumstances to act as if it had certain rights that *look like* the ones you possess in your private capacity but they are nonetheless authorities, not rights.

I can assure you that there is a world of difference between Joe who happens to know the skills of a plumber and once in a while gets compensated for using those skills and Joes Plumbing, Inc.

Without getting into detail, suffice it to say that Radio FreeRepublic has absolutely no legal association with FreeRepublic, LLC.

[SierraWasp]

Sorry you've had a difficult day. Here's an Independence Day thought I posted from Thomas Sowell (by way of Rush) that reinforces what he said above from the writings of Eric Hoffer, to get us back on the subject of this thread:

Power to the investors!!! Screw all the do-gooder groups and their ridiculuous causes!

Yesterday, Rush was reading choice comments of Eric Hoffer out of Thomas Sowell's commentary on Jewish World Review's web-site. Rush put these classic observations up on the free part of his web-site and one phrase is absolutely PROFOUND!!!

"People who are fulfilled in their own lives and careers are not the ones attracted to mass movements: "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding," Hoffer said. "When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

"What Hoffer was describing was the political busybody, the zealot for a cause - the "True believer," who filled the ranks of ideological movements..."

Thanks for the ping to this.

28 posted on 07/04/2003 8:42 AM PDT by SierraWasp (The Endangered Species Act had not saved one specie, but has ruined thousands of American Dreams!!!)

[SierraWasp]

"I'm speaking in terms of essential principles, not from a phony premise set up by legal sophists."

Oh! Ok!!! I'm with you now that It's clear that you are talking about "The Way Things Ought To Be!"

Yes, I too long for the days when every male American was a King and his female spouse was a Queen, His home was his castle and his land was his empire to rule absolutely!

I've been working on a sign to hang at the entrance and others around the perimeter of my rural "plantation" that say:

"WE SHOOT EVERY 3RD TRESPASSER! THE 2ND ONE JUST LEFT!!!"

Your third sentence is profoundly correct and if you ever served as a rural county commissioner, your "gag reflex" would be working overtime every day of each four year term! You would almost be relieved if you weren't re-elected to another term.

You should see the laws in CA governing rural gated subdivision/developments! It percieves these "individuals" as living in "EQUITABLE SERVITUDE!" The "ex-urban refugees" love these collective enclaves, ruled by "busybodies" with dictatorial powers!

It's not only enough to rule their domains by fiat, they come enmasse to public county deliberations to extend their will over others surrounding their tiny empires for miles!!!

Dr. Sowell is absolutely right on the money with this essay.

[Tribune7]

Those who are really concerned about saving farm land should simply exempt farms from property taxes.

[Grampa Dave]

You need to lay off of that stuff that makes you post BS like this:

"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."

Many of the so called evil developers on the West Coast are individuals or partnerships of individuals.

When they try to do anything with the property that they bought, the Natter Nannies like you are all over them with all of the Watermelon Jihadist Phoney reasons of why they can't do anything with their own land.

Last, but not least if a corporation owns the land or has a long term lease on and wants to build something that is not a danger to the public, meets codes and would provide employment to those in the areas, they should be allowed to do so as long as they don't demand our tax $'s to help them pay for something like sports complexes.

[SierraWasp]

"...if a corporation owns the land or has a long term lease on and wants to build something..."

NO COTTON PICKIN WAY, GRAMPA!!!

They'd be liable to makin a PROFIT!!! To these people, that's morally equivalent to "ILLGOTTEN GAINS!"

Just look what happened to the great CA bridge builder, C.C. Myers! He's consistently built bridges for CA in record time and way under budget every time, yet the voters of Sacramento County voted down his right to build a development for senior citizens on the Amador/Sacramento county line!

Now his property is owned by a Land Trust/Conservancy through the purchasing power of taxpayers funds!!!

Too bad his latest project in your "community" got "jacked around" till it fell down yesterday!!!

[Protagoras]

As usual, the author is missing an important point.

LOL,,you're right, Sowell is wrong.

You'll want to guard against taking yourself too seriously.

[agitator]

Dude, you don't know me and you obviously don't know where I'm coming from. It would also appear that you didn't take much care in reading what I've already posted. In light of that, I won't rip you a new one for going off on me based on a bunch of assumptions about my position - even though you've tempted me. All I can say is that you might consider making a better effort at determining exactly what position somebody holds before you launch a volley of wild accusations and mis-characterizations. If, on the other hand, I'm wrong about you and your comments to me weren't simply an error in target identification, I don't get paid to teach at FR so I'm outta here.

SierraWasp seems to get it, maybe you should ask him about it.

[agitator]

:)

[Travis McGee]

Nonsense. Is this a free country or not? Do we have property rights or not? Whether the land is owned by one man or twenty, private property is private property. Or it was before socialist busybodies took over.

[agitator]

Like I said, I don't get paid to teach around here.

[Grampa Dave]

Well, dude. Here in the Napa Valley, individuals, groups of individuals and partnerships of individuals are denied the use of their property 24/7/365 by lawyers that sound just like you. Are you a land use lawyer?

That cancer is all over N. California and Oregon.

If a corporation is trying get special breaks or get our tax dollars for special breaks, re land use plans, I'm right with you. I have worked/helped to defeat these corporate raiders, and on the same day worked to enable Home Depot to finally open a store here inspite of the Nattering Nannies.

In our area, it is the individual landowners whose rights get trampled daily in the name of something green or planned development.

Or a legitimate corporation like Home Depot, Walmart, Applebee's, Target, Trader Joe's is discriminated against by the facist boutique store owners who drive the city and county decisions to prevent a legitimate corporation from building a store to codes and then opening for legitimate business.

[Protagoras]

Like I said, I don't get paid to teach around here.

Good thing, malpractice insurance is expensive.

:^}

[Protagoras]

Whether the land is owned by one man or twenty, private property is private property.

Well said. It is the missing piece from their argument.

I suspect it was just an opportunity to talk on their pet issue, poor choice in this case because it doesn't apply here. Too bad, it's a worthy discussion topic. Poor venue, but sometimes ya gotta stretch.

[G L Tirebiter]

A commercial entity only exists at the pleasure of the people - by and through their government.

To this and the rest of your blather: So what?

The fact that someone chooses to organize his affairs as a corporation - to limit liability, to raise capital more effectively, or 'cause he thinks it's cool - matter not a whit to the argument in the article.

The government is sticking its nose into the private affairs of its citizens, negatively affecting their property, and failing to compensate for those effects.

[SierraWasp]

"I don't get paid to teach at FR so I'm outta here."

Well, you're the "agitator!" You agitated me a little, at first by making sweeping statements that Sowell had it all wrong from the get-go!!!

Those of us that have had to fight this crappola on an on-going basis, just trying to get reality back like it was when we first started to think as adolescents and learned to love our free market/free enterprise capitalistic system... We get a little annoyed with idealistic thinking being interjected as criticism, no matter how principled it may be!

I cringed just a little when Grampa Dave came on like I did at first, but hey, you may not get paid to teach FReepers, but you gotta expect reactions like this if you're gonna be livin up to your screen name as you have so far on this thread. If you hand it out... you gotta be able to handle it when it boomerangs!!!

I'm not sure about Grampa Dave, but I haven't learned everything there is to know about everything, even though I may act like it at times on here. So if you have something to teach us... don't feel overwhelmed by it and stick around and feel free to agitate us some more. But expect to learn some things you aren't aware of, as well!!!

Have a great day, agiteacher! (grin)