Far too often, victims of government regulations concede the moral principles involved. They simply disagree with how the principle is applied. Take rancher Gary Stone as an example.
Federal officials have determined that the New Mexico jumping mouse is an endangered species. To protect the rodent’s habitat, the government has closed access to some waterways used by ranchers near the Texas-New Mexico border. Stone told Texas Public Radio, “I understand endangered species, they need to be protected.” But he isn’t happy that access to water is being cut off, adding, “They want to preserve a jumping mouse and they want to kill an American culture and heritage.”
On what grounds can he object? Stone agrees that endangered species should be protected, he just doesn’t want it impacting him. But in conceding that endangered species should be protected, he surrendered morally. He agreed that the well-being of non-humans is more important than the well-being of humans. Until Stone challenges the principle underlying endangered species protection, his only recourse is to complain that this particular action is going “too far.”
If property owners wish to defend their right to property, they must challenge the principles that give rise to property rights violations. They must assert, proudly and with confidence, that human lives are more important than non-humans. Stone and his colleagues must state, proudly and with confidence, their their lives are more important than a mouse.