Politicians on both sides of the aisle are infamous for saying one thing and doing something contrary to their words. For a voter who values free markets and property rights, it is particularly disconcerting when politicians express support for such principles and then abandon those ideas when it is politically expedient.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is one example. Paxton sued the federal government in 2016 when Obama attempted to seize private land in north Texas, proclaiming, “Washington, D.C., needs to hear loud and clear that Texas will not stand for the federal government’s infringement upon Texas land and the property rights of the people who live here.” However, a year later he supported the seizure of land for the border wall, saying, saying, “It’s a public purpose providing safety to people not only along the border, but to the entire nation.” Apparently, seizing private property and violating property rights is acceptable when it is for the “right” purpose.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbot is another example. When he signed HB40 in 2015, Abbot declared, “We’re ensuring that people and officials at the local level are not going to be encroaching upon individual liberty or individual rights.” Then, in June 2021 Abbott signed SB968, saying, “Vaccine passports are now prohibited in the Lone Star State.” Apparently, it is not acceptable for local governments to dictate how businesses can operate and violate property rights, but it is okay for the state to do so.
Not to be outdone, when running for President in 2016, Texas Sen Ted Cruz attacked Donald Trump for the latter’s views on eminent domain. Cruz said that “we have an obligation to protect the rights of Americans, and private property is essential to the rights of Americans.” But it wasn’t long before Cruz was attacking Big Tech and threatening legal action to force them to operate their private businesses as Cruz thinks appropriate. Apparently, property rights are essential only when one is using his property in a manner that Cruz finds acceptable.
As these examples illustrate, many politicians voice support for a principle when it is politically popular, and they are quick to discard that principle when doing so is politically popular. But principles are not simply guidelines that can be abandoned when it is convenient. A “principle” with exceptions is not a principle.
Texans deserve better than empty claims of support for free markets and property rights. We deserve politicians who walk the talk, who put into action the principles they proclaim to support.