Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Property rights vs. 'will of majority' (Unrestrained democracies can be tyrannical ..)
The Orange County Register ^ | Monday, January 6, 2003 | Tibor R. Machan Ethics professor at Chapman University

Posted on 01/07/2003 12:00:37 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Property rights vs. 'will of majority'

The basis of virtually all freedom is the right to private property. If I am to be free to publish, I must be free to own printing presses; otherwise my freedom has no meaning. If the government owns the presses, it has the power to revoke my liberty by simply denying permission to use them. Just ask the journalists at Pravda in the old Soviet Union!


(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: propertyrights; willofmajority

1 posted on 01/07/2003 12:00:38 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
read later
2 posted on 01/07/2003 12:08:48 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Someone said, tyranny of the majority is worse than a dictatorship because there are more dictators in a majority (paraphrase). Sounds about right.

Restrictive covenants are bad, but you have the choice of living there or not living there. Zoning laws do not give you a choice.
3 posted on 01/07/2003 12:10:51 PM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Tyranny by the masses is tyranny nonetheless.
4 posted on 01/07/2003 12:13:22 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Would Home Owners Associations qualify as tyrannical entities? Based upon the horror stories I've heard, I would say YES.

"You can't have cheesey lawn ornaments. I don't care that you own the property and pay the taxes on it. You do what the HOA tells you to do."

"You can't paint your house a gaudy color, even though you do own it."

Scary.
5 posted on 01/07/2003 12:21:43 PM PST by Luna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Democracy is when five rapists and four women vote on how to spend the afternoon.

Democracy is when five wolves and four sheep vote on what to have for lunch.

A "super majority" does help, of course.
6 posted on 01/07/2003 12:21:51 PM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c.
R-e-p-e-s-e-n-t-a-t-i-v-e. .D-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.

Why is this discussion even even necessary?

7 posted on 01/07/2003 12:23:43 PM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luna
I used to hate 'em. I've learned to like and respect them. The key is that anyone in a covenant neighborhood could have bought somewhere where there was no covenant. And you cannot attach your home to a covenant neighborhood unless you, and you alone, choose to encumber your property in such a way.

In other words, you ALWAYS voluntarily attach yourself to a HOA. Many like knowing the neighbor will never paint his house yellow or park one of those lame RV's in plain sight.
8 posted on 01/07/2003 12:25:12 PM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Luna
Would Home Owners Associations qualify as tyrannical entities? Based upon the horror stories I've heard, I would say YES.

A person chooses to live in a subdivision with a HOA, and always knows that the property they are purchasing has deed restrictions. This is a choice. On the other hand, I can not choose to not live somewhere and declare zoning regulations to be null and void. That is tyrany, HOA's are not.

9 posted on 01/07/2003 12:25:49 PM PST by FreeTally (If its illegal to drink and drive, why are there parking lots at bars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I'm well aware that people choose to live in subdivisions with HOAs. My point is that people purposefully put themselves in a position to have their private property rights restricted.

I'm against HOAs in case you hadn't noticed.
10 posted on 01/07/2003 1:16:13 PM PST by Luna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Interesting, was just reading something about the Contract clause in the Constitution and how Daniel Webster won a lawsuit in the early 1800's (Dartmouth College v. New Hampshire??) that has connection here. Seems there were ongoing battles between Jeffersonian Federalists who pushed the common good and (the then) Republicans who believed in private property rights. The war never ends, does it?
11 posted on 01/07/2003 1:18:08 PM PST by harrym
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luna
I'm well aware that people choose to live in subdivisions with HOAs. My point is that people purposefully put themselves in a position to have their private property rights restricted.

And FT's point, I believe, is that if those people voluntarily agree to those restrictions they are unobjectionable (although perhaps unwise).

12 posted on 01/07/2003 2:01:51 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
And FT's point, I believe, is that if those people voluntarily agree to those restrictions they are unobjectionable (although perhaps unwise).

  What I find interesting about HOA's is how they seem to follow the same trajectory as government power - but faster.

  In general, HOA's start out unobjectionably. Heck, they're even good. As some one else pointed out, they can serve to keep some one from wrecking property values all around by making their home an eyesore. All well and good.

  However, they never seem to stay that way. They seem to expand into ever smaller regions of your house, and become more and more filled with busybodies. They either reinterpret, or amend, the original HOA - right in accordance with the rules, perhaps, but it still happens.

  Going with the unoriginal, I suppose this is because the people who get on the boards are the ones who want to use that power. Those who are generally pleased with the neighborhood usually don't bother pushing too hard. These power seekers can usually manage to amend the rules (most HOA's have set procedures for doing so) by the simple matter of going to the meetings, and trying again and again. Most people don't do that, thus handing the boards ever increasing power.

  In time, many HOA's do resemble small tyrannies - complete with political infighting and favors doled out to friends of the board. And, of course, revenge on the boards' opponents. (No, I've never lived in an HOA neighborhood. My cousin and two friends of mine have, and their stories bear remarkable similarities.)

  I suppose the question is why this happens faster in HOA's than in the country at large - maybe just because there are fewer people. It may be instructive to try to restore some HOA's to their good old "original intent" just to get some practice at the small scale, eh?

Drew Garrett

13 posted on 01/07/2003 2:14:15 PM PST by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
If they bought a house with restrictive covenants that subjected them to a homeowners association, then they have no legitimate beef. They knew it coming in.

Practically every restrictive covenant and homeowners association I'm aware off was set up before the devoper sold the property.

If they bought there, and then try to break the covenants, they are violating the rights of the other homeowners, who also bought there perhaps because of the convenants. They are inconsiderate of the rights of the existing home owners.
14 posted on 01/07/2003 3:55:20 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"The bulwark against tyranny of the majority, no less so than against one-party or dictatorial rule, is the institution of a vigilantly protected system of private-property rights."

This cannot be repeated often enough. The article reminds me of two recent conversations I had. One was with a good 2nd amendment rights person who said he didn't have the time to care about property rights. I asked him what he intended to protect with that gun when his home was gone. The second, a "former" relative who had been on my land rights mailing list for years when I sent an article out to all, informed me that he wasn't interested in "politics" and that he was performing a greater good "feeding the poor" in our county. That's the kind of short sightedness that destroys nations.

Thanks for the article, Ernest.

15 posted on 01/07/2003 5:47:27 PM PST by AuntB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Federalist #10, James Madison:
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions..."
16 posted on 01/07/2003 7:40:53 PM PST by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson