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 topic of this post is private vs. public property rights.
The opinion piece claims that
Property rights are fundamental to everyday life. Yet private-versus-public property rights are misunderstood and seem to be in constant conflict in Sussex. This conflict must be resolved, not to raise one above the other, but to bring better balance to their application.
The author is correct that a great deal of confusion exists regarding property rights. And this opinion piece is Exhibit A.
Though he claims that property rights are “fundamental to everyday life,” the author doesn’t bother to define the term. Nor does he tell us what the conflict is between “public” property rights and private property rights.
The right to property means the freedom to produce, trade, and use material values. It means that individuals can act as they judge best without first seeking the permission of others. As with all rights, the right to property precludes us from preventing others from acting on their judgment. Further, rights—including property rights—pertain to individuals, not groups. Conflicts arise when one ascribes rights to groups.
The author cites zoning and density regulations as an example of “public” property rights. This is much worse than simply a misunderstanding of property rights. It means the annihilation of property rights. Land-use regulations remove control of a property from the owner and vest control in government officials. The author implies that such regulations balance private and “public” property rights. In truth, no such balance can exist.
To illustrate, zoning dictates how a particular parcel of land can be legally used, regardless of the rightful owner’s desires. His freedom to use his land as he judges best is non-existent. Zoning compels individuals to act, not by right, but only with the permission of government officials. In such a context, “rights” are nothing more than temporary permissions that can be revoked whenever government officials deem it appropriate.
The fundamental issue is not private vs. “public” property rights. The fundamental issue is property rights—freedom—vs. statism—subordination of the individual to the group.