In Part 1 of this series, we examined why the claim that a proposal will violate property rights often falls on deaf ears. In this post, we will examine a similar error in defending property rights. Often, when a proposal is made that will violate property rights, the victims state that they support the general idea but the specific proposal goes “too far.”
For example, when Houston City Council proposed banning smoking in all businesses in the city, several business groups objected. They weren’t opposed to limiting smoking in some businesses but banning it in all businesses was going “too far.”
This argument concedes the fundamental principle. Instead of defending property rights as an inviolate principle, the argument concedes that some restrictions on property use are acceptable. The only issue up for debate is when and to what extent. When and to what extent are mere details, and once the fundamental principle is conceded, it is only a matter of time before the violations expand. And that is precisely what occurred in Houston. Within twenty years, smoking was banned inside all virtually businesses.
Instead of arguing that a regulation or law goes “too far,” the intended victims should stand on principle. They should defend their moral right to property. They should argue that any violation of property rights is going too far.
We can’t defend property rights by agreeing that the violation of property rights is acceptable “sometimes” and then claiming that some violations go “too far.” We must oppose all violations of the right to property.
Principles matter. Standing on principle gives one a powerful tool. Conceding principles puts that tool in the hands of those who would violate property rights. Read Part 3 of this series.