The mission of the Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) is to be the voice of Texas agriculture. As such, it frequently voices support for property rights. As an example, in a recent opinion piece, TFB President Russell Boening calls for eminent domain reform to protect property owners.
Boening writes:
Corporations with this powerful, often abused tool do not have to respect the same rules of transparency that a government property taker must observe. They are not required to have public meetings. Eminent domain takings in general do not mandate a good faith offer. Texas Farm Bureau has documented many cases where property owners believe they’ve been slighted in the process.
Such is the case of Taylor County couple Bill and Lynne Keys. As Bill says, “They have the right to take your land, but not the right to take advantage of you.” He is right, but there is not much in Texas law to prevent it.
Legally, private entities can seize private property. But what is legal is different from, and often contradictory to, what is a right. Slavery was once legal in Texas, but this did not mean that individuals had a right to enslave others.
Boening implies that rights are granted by government. But what government grants, government can also rescind. If rights come from government, then they aren’t really rights. They are permissions that may be revoked whenever government deems it appropriate.
A right is a moral principle that protects an individual’s freedom to act on his own judgment, so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. Rights are a logical consequence of our nature and the needs of survival. If we wish to survive and flourish, then we must think. And we must be free to act on our own conclusions and judgement.
But this is precisely what eminent domain denies. As Boening writes,
Eminent domain resembles a business transaction, with one notable exception. A property owner faced with a taking does not have the option to walk away from the table.
The freedom to walk away from the table is more than a “notable exception.” It is the essential difference between a business deal and eminent domain. In a business deal, an individual can act on his own judgement. When eminent domain is invoked, he can’t. To equate the two, even while pointing out a “notable exception,” is to concede moral principles.
If we wish to defend property rights, we cannot and must not concede moral principles.