An Open Letter to the National Butterfly Center

When an individual takes property without the owner’s consent, it is called theft. When a group of individuals does this, it is called organized crime. When the government does this, it is called eminent domain.

The destruction of your property to build the border wall is an example of government hypocrisy at its worse. We are told that the wall will make the nation safer. Yet, in the process of making the nation safer, the government has made you and your neighbors less safe. The government seeks to take your property regardless of your own desires and without due process.

Unfortunately, you have argued that a border wall is ineffective in stopping illegal immigration. This merely clouds the issue. The practicality of a border wall is irrelevant when your property rights are at stake. Are you arguing against a wall, or are you trying to convince others that your right to property is important?

The right to property protects your freedom to use, trade, and dispose of your land as you choose. You can grow native plants to attract butterflies, birds, and other wildlife, or you can clear cut the land and turn it into a barren desert. It is your land; it is your choice. You can sell your property to any willing buyer or bequeath it to another organization. It is your land; it is your choice.

The government has usurped your right to use, trade, and dispose of your land as you choose. The government wants to force you to “sell” your property, regardless of your desires or choices. This is the only issue that matters. The impracticality of a border wall is an argument against a border wall. It is not an argument in defense of property rights.

The government’s only proper purpose is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. When the government becomes a violator of some individual’s rights, it is no longer a protector. It becomes a threat to the well-being of every individual.

I share your dismay with many of Texas’s politicians. They have expressed support for property rights, and yet, when they have a chance to stand on principle, they have cowered behind the hypocrisy of political expediency. The border wall is popular with their base, and rather than defend property rights (also popular with their base), they have attempted to rationalize their support for using eminent domain to build the wall or remained silent on the issue. They are trying to have their cake while eating yours too.

But you can’t properly address these issues if you are trying to make a case that a border wall is impractical. You must pick your battles, and saving your property is the most important battle.

A principled defense of property rights may—and I stress may—convince some politicians to grow a spine and support your property rights. I may be naïve, but I like to think that even politicians (or at least some) are capable of recognizing their errors and taking a principled stand on an issue.

A principled stand on property rights means two things: 1. Identifying the principles underlying the right to property, and 2. Identifying the principles underlying attacks on property rights. If both aren’t explicitly identified and named, then the enemies of the right to property will win by default.

The defenders of eminent domain argue that the “public interest” supersedes property rights. But the “public interest” is an undefined and undefinable term. As an example, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has defended using eminent domain for the wall because it will make the nation safer—it will allegegly serve the “public interest.” But when the Obama Administration wanted to use eminent domain in north Texas, Paxton had a much different story. He sued the federal government, declaring his support for property rights. To Paxton, the “public interest” really means the interests of his political base. But he is hardly alone.

Those who cite the “public interest” to defend their policies really mean that the interests of some should be forced upon others. They really mean that some should be forced to sacrifice for the alleged benefit of others.

This is the principle that underlies the attack on your property rights. This is the principle that must be named and challenged.

In its place, we must assert and defend the moral right of each individual to live as he chooses. We must assert and defend the moral right of each individual to use his property in the pursuit of his own values and his own happiness, so long as he respects the right of others to do the same. This is the principle that underlies the right to property.

When principles are named explicitly and clearly, they work to the advantage of the rational. When they are evaded and remain hidden, they work to the advantage of the irrational. If you wish to defend your right to property, then you must name the principles involved.