For decades, the government has been preventing property owners from using their land as they choose. Under the guise of protecting “wetlands” and endangered species, government agencies have prevented development on parcels of land across the nation. But under the Trump administration, government agencies are wildlife preserves, both public and private, along the border to make way for border wall.
Consider the North American Butterfly Center as an example. The privately owned preserve hosts the world’s largest assortment of butterflies. But the center lies in the path of the border wall, and government contractors have been destroying habitat that was planted by the center’s owner for the purpose of attracting butterflies.
On the one hand, we have government agencies prohibiting individuals from using their land in order to protect plants and animals. On the other hand, government agencies are prohibiting individuals from using their land to protect plants and animals.
This is the kind of contradiction that is inevitable when government is not limited to its legitimate and proper purpose of protecting individual rights, including property rights. Having expanded its power far beyond protecting rights, government officials see no problem in violating property rights for contradictory purposes.
This contradiction is founded on the premise that individuals must sacrifice for the “public interest.” Since the “public interest” is undefined and undefinable, it can be used to allegedly justify nearly anything. As evidence, the “public interest” is used to justify both the protection of nature and the destruction of nature.
The only way to eliminate such contradictions is for government to protect individual rights. And that includes protecting the individuals freedom to use his property as he chooses.