Parker County commissioners recently denied a landlocked resident’s request that the county build a road to his property. Jonathan Hobson inherited the property in 2015. He was allowed temporary access across adjoining property, but that access ended in June of this year after his legal suit was thrown out.
After the ruling, Hobson stated:
Our government’s first and foremost responsibility is to secure the rights of its citizens and if my rights are being violated, they have a responsibility to protect those rights even over somebody’s private property rights.
Hobson didn’t indicate which of his rights are being violated. And he can’t because there is no rights violation. But consider the deeper meaning of Hobson’s claim.
First, he makes an arbitrary claim that his rights have been violated. Then, he seeks to violate the property rights of his neighbors to remedy the situation. He believes that his alleged rights supersede the actual rights of others.
While arguing that government should protect his rights, he sees no contradiction in demanding that government violate his neighbor’s rights. But if the government’s responsibility is to protect individual rights, why should his take precedence? He offered no explanation in the article. And in truth, no rational explanation is possible.
There is no conflict of rights. Rights pertain to freedom of action–the freedom to act on one’s own judgment without coercion or physical interference from others. Nobody has coerced Hobson.
The fact that his neighbors have denied him permission to build a road on their property is not coercion. They are acting on their own judgment, which is their right. If Hobson cannot secure their voluntary assistance to access his property, he should accept their decision. Instead, he has pleaded with government officials to force his neighbors to satisfy his desires.