A Response To: "Property Rights Form the Foundation of Freedom"

Read This First -------> Editorial Link

Radley,

I agree that it is an interesting issue as to whether the CHOICE to be a customer at a place of business translates to a responsibility of the owner to provide a safe environment in which to exercise that choice. Public vs. Private rights are a very contentious and very complex debate. While one of the keys to America's success is certainly the right to privacy and private property, it cannot be thought of as something that exists in a vacuum. It's certainly acceptable to own land, but is it acceptable to dump poisons in a creek that PASSES through your land and is shared by many AND may be a tributary to drinking water supplies? I think the answer is clear in this case. However, the less clear the case the harder it is to come up with a reasonable solution that straddles the line between personal and public rights.

Your premise that the right to private property is an absolute is a bad place to start. In the realm of human law and politics very little, if anything, is absolute. The Constitution is an evolving document for this very reason. Our system of government is set up in such a way to handle the vagaries and "gray areas" of the body politic. This is also a reason why America is so successful. So, while choice in the market place allows one to be able to choose between establishments that are deemed safe as opposed to unsafe, for whatever reason, it then begs the question, how do you ensure that CHOICE exists? In order to do this there must be regulations that ensure that one is not obligated to choose from only one or a few choices – all of which may be in cahoots to fix prices or shirk ethical duties. Hence, we have laws governing competition and monopolies.

Furthermore, there are rules and regulations that govern the use of private property used for a business that provide for the safety of patrons and these laws exist for a good reason. They exist because consumers and people in general have a right to expect a certain amount of standard safety when committing to a transaction. This safety includes the enforcement of contracts and other similar ideals as well as physical safety and well-being. Often patrons will not know of dangers until it's too late, as may be the case when eating food improperly prepared or in the case of fraud. Reacting to safety issues that come to fruition usually ends up costing the taxpayer money in the end, be it through police involvement or medical care. Therefore, it's in the best interest of the public to pass laws governing the conduct of privately owned businesses in hopes of proactively preventing such harm. This logic also applies to homes and private property as in the example given above. One need only look at the improvements to consumer and worker safety over the years and the history of abuses by corporations and the like to see the good that such regulation can accomplish.

Now, as to what level of regulation constitutes reasonable is certainly up for debate. However, it is NOT an "either/or" debate. It is a debate of degree or level of regulation. Employing a WIN/LOSE or ALL/NOTHING mentality does not assist this debate. The world simply does not work that way. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Game Theory understands that by engaging in this type of approach one engenders a "Tit for Tat" cycle of give and take that ends up becoming a war of attrition and results in polarization. This polarization then leads to a lack of rational debate that further fuels the fire and perpetuates a downward spiral of resentment on all sides. It should be clear that the level or degree to which regulation is created is in great measure attributable to the feelings of those who elect the officials responsible for creating law. If the majority of the public feels it’s in the best interest of all to enact such regulation and if this feeling is strong enough, i.e. louder than special interest lobbies, then the pendulum will swing in that direction. If feelings change, then it will move again. But, to suggest that it's a clear cut choice is an oversimplification of the human condition and an ideological fantasy. Perhaps a better understanding of the legal system and common law in general would be a more appropriate subject to write about. If you want to change the system, you need to know how to work within it first.

Lastly, your intellectual slight of hand that allows you to take a shot at tax revenues and how we get them is a little suspect. If your argument is that the tax code as it stands today is unfair, you'll get no argument from me. But, if you are arguing that income or corporate tax as an institution should be abolished, then I disagree unless you can come up with a source of income for the governing of 360 million plus people. We walk through life everyday oblivious to the things for which tax money pays. Your ability to have your website and to write essays for Fox are all supported by the government and the tax dollars needed to pay for the services provided. Just some of the examples are:

- The Internet: Developed by DARPA using your tax dollars and supported by a myriad of governments sponsored boards that set standards for use, communications and development;
- The safety of your site via laws governing malicious conduct on the Internet;
- Assuming you get paid for your essays, the trust that your contract with Fox is enforceable by laws developed and enforced via your tax dollars;
- Your ability to drive to work, have electricity, phone service and a safe building to work in are all results of the government spending tax dollars;
- Your education is or was probably subsidized along the way by government programs and tax money;
- Your ability to sleep safe at home and function while oblivious to the government is a function of tax money;
- Your ability to speak freely via the Internet is a function of government supported by tax money.

So, unless you have a viable, economically sound alternative to revenue for these services and the thousands of others provided by the government, I wouldn’t get too fired up about the 16th amendment. If you want to tell me that the code is extremely biased towards the rich and wealthy and a more equitable sharing of the burden of government should be enacted, I'm all for it. But argue that case instead of trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.