Often, when a regulation or law is proposed, the would-be victims argue that their property rights would be violated if the regulation is enacted. While this is far too often true, it just as frequently falls on deaf ears. And the reason is quite simple: Most people think that property rights are not sacrosanct. They believe that it is proper to impose some controls and regulations on the use of property.
If property rights can be restricted sometimes, then the issue becomes when and for what purpose. If the cause is allegedly noble enough or a majority of voters support a proposal, then most Texans consider it proper to violate the right to property. And this is why claiming that a proposal will violate property rights is generally ineffective in and of itself. That claim does not get to the root of the issue.
The root issue is the standard of value. Those who would violate property rights believe that the group is the standard of value. If a proposal will supposedly benefit the community, the nation, the “public interest,” then they believe that the rights of individuals, including property rights, should be sacrificed. The good of the group, they believe, supersedes the good of individuals.
Thus, if one claims that his property rights will be violated, others will simply shrug and regard it as the price that some must pay to promote the alleged well-being of the group.
There is certainly nothing wrong with claiming that one’s right to property will be violated. But we must go deeper than that. We must challenge the premise that the group is the standard of value. If we do not challenge that premise, it will continue to shape the debate. But if we name it and challenge it, then those who want to violate property rights must defend their deepest premises. They must explain and justify why individuals should sacrifice their flourishing for the group. They can’t. Read Part 2 of this series.