It is rare that an opinion piece provides me with three distinct issues to address in separate posts. A piece at Capegazette.com, which “covers Delaware’s Cape Region” does just that. The first post about this piece addressed “givings” vs. takings. The second post addressed private vs. public property rights. This post looks at the author’s claim that the “common use of the term property rights” is “based on a false premise not supported by law.”
The author cites zoning, density restrictions, road standards, height limits, and more as examples to support his position. He wants us to believe that such laws are proper and just. Why? Because they are the law and the courts have upheld them.
The fact that a law exists does not make it proper, just, or moral. Slavery was once legal, but that did not make that vile institution proper, just, or moral. The Nazis exterminated Jews and other “undesirables” in accordance with the law, but that did not render mass murder proper, just, or moral.
Interestingly, the author claims that his piece is a reality check. However, it appears that he never bothered to actually look at reality. Instead, he gives us a fallacious appeal to authority. If he had looked at reality, he would recognize the fact that the court has made many mistaken rulings over the years. As one example, consider the Court’s rulings on abortion.
Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court upheld abortion rights. Then, in 2022 the Court revered course and declared that there is no right to abortion. No matter where you stand on abortion, you will disagree with one of these rulings (perhaps both) and consider it mistaken. The fact that the courts rule on a law does not automatically make their ruling proper, just, or moral.
The author is correct when he asserts that there is a false premise involved in discussion of property rights. In truth, there are many false premises involved. And one of the worst is the notion of “public” property.