We frequently hear individuals claim that their property rights are being violated. It happens when the government uses eminent domain to seize property for the border wall. It happens when zoning is used to prohibit or severely restrict short-term rentals. It happens when a preservation ordinance is used to prohibit modern buildings. Yet, in these instances, and many like them, these legitimate claims that the right to property is being violated falls on deaf ears. Why?
The simple answer is: Few people care about property rights until it is their property that is threatened. Rural Texans threatened with eminent domain for a pipeline or railroad are unconcerned with South Texans being threatened with eminent domain for the border wall. And neither is concerned with the threat to property rights posed by zoning, historical preservation, or the countless other laws that violate property rights. But the simple answer doesn’t tell the full story.
Our culture is dominated by the idea that the individual must sometimes sacrifice for the “public interest.” Most Texans embrace this idea, believing that sometimes individuals must sacrifice their property for a pipeline, a railroad, a wall, a road, or some other project. These property owners will support this idea so long as the property being sacrificed belongs to the “other guy.” But these property owners fail to realize that to everyone else, they are the “other guy.”
If we want our property rights defended and protected, then we must defend and protect the property rights of the “other guy.” If we won’t defend his right to property, we can’t expect the “other guy” to support our right to property.