Texans are quick to defend their own property rights, but they are often willing to turn a blind eye when the property rights of the “other guy” are violated. But if they aren’t willing to defend the property rights of the “other guy,” why should the “other guy” want to defend their property rights?
For example, property owners between Dallas and Houston are threatened with seizure of their land through eminent domain for the construction of the bullet train. But they have said nothing in defense of property owners along the border who are threatened with seizure of their land through eminent domain for construction of Trump’s wall. Similarly, those along the border have said nothing in defense of those threatened by the bullet train.
To a degree this is understandable. Each group of property owners is concerned about the threat to their land, and the other group is the “other guy.” What they, and countless others, don’t realize is, to others they are the “other guy.”
Too often, individuals support the violation of property rights when it happens to the “other guy.” They might support a border wall, and they believe that the ends justify seizing private property (as long as it’s not theirs). Or, they might support the bullet train and believe that the ends justify seizing private property (as long as it’s not theirs). The same is true of zoning, business regulations, taxation, and countless other violations of property rights.
In other words, most individuals support property rights for themselves but not for the “other guy.” But the “other guy” thinks the same thing, and there are a lot more “other guys.”
The common, unprincipled approach is to pick and choose when to support property rights. But the common, unprincipled approach means that anyone’s and everyone’s property rights can be sacrificed when enough of the “other guys” deem it proper to do so.
The principled approach is to defend property rights without exception. The principled approach is to defend the property rights of the “other guy” today, because tomorrow we may need the “other guy” to defend our property rights.