Here are the postings that were a large part of the inspiration in starting this blog. I submitted them on a local political site. In some ways the issues are simply local, but in others they are completely universal. I posted them under the nomme-de-plume Partisan for Liberty. Not, as some would accuse anonymous posters, because of the fear of being associated with my comments, but because of the fear of my comments being associated with me. It has happened before that my postings there were treated with less respect both because of my age and last name and the message was simply too important to let it be degraded for such poor reasons. Without further ado:
From June 26th:
Anyone who still deigns to look at the Sentinel Whispers will have seen them crowing over their victory in getting Four Seasons denied a wetlands permit. Frankly, I found it utterly sickening to read. They cheered at the complete trampling of property rights, of individual decision, of local governance, of the free market, at the very safeguards that preserve our sacred liberty.
There is only one plus that can be taken from this post. Now no one can have any doubt as to where they stand and what you’re aligning yourself with if you stand with them. Let’s look at their “Lessons Learned”:
–> “Never give up on a cause you believe is right. Help can come from unexpected sources. It wasn’t the commissioners, or local legislators like Del. Dick Sossi and state Sen. E.J. Pipkin, who stopped the project. It was elected officials who don’t even live on Kent Island, but saw the potential environmental damage from such a large project. “
Last time I checked people coming in from outside, with no personal knowledge of situations to offer their input was called being an obnoxious busybody and when they force their way on to the locals it was called tyranny. And as for the environmental damage nonsense, this is America; all issues, no matter how large, come second to the issue of freedom – environmental damage is not a justifiable cause to infringe on personal freedom, private property rights, and free enterprise. The fact that O’Malley and Franchot came and got involved should be cause for outrage not celebration.
–> “It’s foolish for elected officials to sign gag orders. This is an abdication of their responsibility to speak for the people they were elected to represent. How can they do that job when they have to remain silent at the most crucial time?”
If anything politicians talk way too much about things government has no business getting into. If only more of them would sign gag orders on more issues then we might make some progress in saving liberty from the politicians and the socialists.
–> “There were too many activists involved in this seven-year battle to mention them without the risk of omitting someone. But collectively they should be acknowledged for plugging away and making a huge investment of time, despite long odds against their success. Even if the state’s decision to deny the wetlands permit is overturned, the example they set means that their efforts were not in vain.”
Not in vain at setting dangerous precedents maybe. All stopping Four Seasons will do is say that simply not liking something being done on land that you have no claim to is just reason to stop it. Such a decision can lead to only one thing and that is the complete and total destruction of private property as we know it. This is a free market society; you are given the freedom to use your property as you see fit. If you should find this system distasteful there are still several places where private property doesn’t exist: Cuba, North Korea, and China to name a few. Otherwise, there’s a legitimate way to preserve land as it is – buy it yourself.
I’m sick and tired of seeing the forces who oppose development try and hide their hatred for liberty behind pretty slogans. Liberty is the core principle of this nation and I will not stand quietly while it is under assault in my very own home county!
- Partisan for Liberty
Responses on June 27th:
Dear QAC Buzz:
I’d like to thank “Partisan for Liberty” for his/her post and thank them for successfully making my point regarding being utterly misinformed regarding the actual facts.
The truth of the matter is, regarding Four Seasons, the Board of Public Works (Governor O\’Malley, Comptroller Franchot, and Treasurer Kopp) wasn’t considering a wetlands permit, they were considering a “wetlands license” and there is a major distinction between the two. Once people realize and understand this distinction, only then will they realize how important the Board of Public Works decision really was, and how it affects ALL of us.
A permit, such as a building permit, provides permission for someone to do something on THEIR own lands. Conversely, a license, or in this case a wetlands license, provides permission for someone to receive the “privilige” to use or occupy state lands. Under Maryland code, wetlands, no matter where they\’re located, fall under the protection of the State. In this regard, Maryland is no different than many other states in the nation. Nevertheless, anytime wetlands are at issue or risk, its generally the State that oversees its use and impacts. In the case of Four Seasons, Hovnanian/Four Seasons requested a wetlands license in order to build a pier into the Chester River, 18 stormwater outfalls that discharged into Cox Creek and the Chester River, and a bridge over Cox and/or Macum Creek. Each of these projects would either influence or impact waterways that are beyond the ownership of Four Seasons. In other words, because each of these projects potentially influenced waterways that belong to all of us, that’s why the wetlands license was requested from the Board of Public Works. However, the Board of Public Works looks out for everyone and is required under law to view aspects of wetlands impact…indeed, in this case, they were looking out for watermen, hunters and anyone who uses any of the aforementioned waterways, for boating, recreation, whatever. They were also looking at what the future impact to these waterways might be given the scale of the proposed Four Seasons development.
Maryland Environmental Article, Annotated Code 16-102 reads, “In many areas of the State, much of the wetlands have been lost or despoiled by unregulated dredging, dumping, filling and like activities, and…the remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost or despoiled by these and other activities. Such loss…will affect adversely, if not eliminate entirely, the value of wetlands…shell fish of significant economic value; and destroy the wetlands as a habitat for plants and animals of significant economic value and elimate or substantially reduce marine commerce, recreation….., etc”
To follow, in section B of 16-102, “It is the Public policy of the State (Board of Public Works), taking into account varying ecological, economic, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic value, to preserve the wetlands and prevent their despoliation and destruction.” This is the law and the Board of Public Works followed the law. Moreover, they were looking out for the interest of EVERYONE, watermen, boaters, crabbers, fisherman, oysterman, hunters, waterskiers…anyone who uses the Bay, the most amazing estuary in the country. The BPW made the right decision. They were looking out for the long term economic value our OUR Bay and the overall impact to the State of Maryland, and not the short term economic value of an out of state development company who rarely uses local contractors.
-Jay Falstad
This note is in response to the comments from “Partisan for Liberty.”
I moved here several years ago from White County, Indiana–a community of family farms far enough away from developers that few ever worry about zoning; and the vast majority of residents agree with your views on the sanctity of private property and that one should, as you put it, “use your property as you see fit.”
About 30 years ago, one of our farmers retired. He could have sold his farm to a neighboring landowner, but since there was no zoning in the area and he was free to do whatever he wanted with his farm, he decided to take a better offer that was being offered by a company that built landfills. He retired to Florida and lived well for the rest of his life. All of the owners of neighboring farms, however, found that they had to pay a price for his freedom. The landfill poisoned their wells so that they could no longer live in their homes without trucking in water from a neighboring town. The stench from the landfill was pervasive for miles around. And when the farmers wanted to sell their farms… well, you can guess there were no buyers. Their land was pretty much worthless.
One of those landowners was my uncle; and the White County Liberty Landfill ruined his life. A prosperous farmer before it was built, he died living in a rented house in Buffalo, Indiana, miserable and broke.
So, Partisan, you’re not only a landowner, but you’re also a member of our community, with its concomitant rights and responsibilities. I’ll bet that if you really think about it, you’ll agree that your right to use your land should have limits based on the overall effect of that use on the community.
–A Former Hoosier
Responses on June 28th:
I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to both Mr. Falstad and Former Hoosier.
Mr. Falstad,
My apologies on the mistake regarding the permit, I was simply operating off of the editorial from The Capital that was posted. The permit/license difference doesn’t terribly change my feelings though. A license that gives permission to use state lands is just as illegitimate in my eyes as a permit; the government holds lands only by the right of the gun, and even when they are bought by the government, it is still an improper purchase as it is paid for with stolen money, money extorted from the citizens through taxes.
And as far as impact on the waterways not owned by them, that may well be the case, but the government has no right to take proactive action. If Four Seasons is built and it does have a negative impact, then yes, by all means act to stop the infringing on the freedom of others, but the government (and for that matter, anyone) has no right to act until someone’s freedom is under assault.
As far as I can see, it matters nothing if it is the law. The law comes second to justice, and justice only acts in the defense of freedom. A law without justice is completely lacking in legitimacy and the only force it has is the threat of violence from the enforcers.
Former Hoosier,
My apologies for the brevity of my response. It seems to me that your anger is misdirected. Did the landfill and its effects violate your uncle’s liberty? Yes. Did the farmer who sold his land do anything to violate your uncle’s liberty or anyone else’s? No.
The violation was on the part of the landfill and those who built it. And if the residents felt that their freedoms were violated then they should have acted out against it. Yes, there should be limits, connecting to the liberty of others, but no action until they are crossed. But under no stretch of the imagination could this be construed as a justification for the limiting of the sanctity of private property rights.
Finally to all,
The simple fact is there can be no compromise on any freedoms, and most particularly property rights. The right to private property, to dispose of it as you wish is the core of America, the foundation upon which all other freedoms rest. Make no mistake, there is a reason property is the first thing to go in a Marxist revolution.
Once your property rights have been stolen from you, you become dependent upon the government for your sustenance. Yes, perhaps they will care for your needs, as they do in the socialist states of Europe. But if you need them, if your existence is contingent on theirs then there is no barrier to their stripping away the rest of your rights – the right to bear arms next (in order to prevent any resistance to what will follow), the right to assembly, the right to religion, the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to an education of your choosing, and countless more. The day you surrender your property rights to the state is the day you willingly sell yourself into slavery.
- Partisan for Liberty, Queenstown
Former Hoosier,
I think you passed the buck on that retired farmer exercising his property rights a little to easy in your Indiana example. If that landfill poisoned the surrounding well water then something was done quite illegally. The fact is you make trash and garbage and it has to go somewhere, even in Queen Annes county. Landfills are a fact of life! It’s the job of the state and county to regulate landfills, not that retired farmer. No farmer should EVER complain about smells given the smells we create in the farming community. Under your scenario your uncle would have complained if someone bought this fellows farm and put a poultry, pig or dairy operation on it. Finally if that was good Indiana farm ground, the landfill should have had no effect on its value as a farm. Just look at Church Hill. From the top of the county dump there you can see several new housing developments going up as we speak so don’t tell me no one would want to buy a farm beside a dump as a farm!
Lets take your argument and look at it from this stand point. Suppose I owned a farm on the north side of Kent Island and over the last 50 years they put a HUGE dump to the east of me and a HUGE dump to the west of me and they built a HUGE bridge to bring in the all the waste. I didn’t like it but I lived with it because I respected property rights. Then after 50 years, I decide to sell my farm to someone else who wanted to build a in fill dump on my farm because thats who would pay the most for my farm…. How hypocritical would it be if the current operators and owners of the dumps around me went and took me to court when I decided to build a dump between them? Now replace dump for housing developments in this scenario and thats what you have going on with this fight over four season! Maybe Indiana has it right.. Anyone for a referendum to eliminate title 18, the comprehensive plan and zoning all together? I’ll bet allot of people would sweat the night of that election out! Oregon just had its state “smart growth” laws neutered in a state wide referendum in favor of property rights and they’re bigger tree huggers then we are! Really… read this article! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58185-2005Feb27?language=printer
Right on “Partisan for Liberty”!
- Anonymous
Responses on June 29th:
Thanks to both the Partisan for Liberty and Anonymous for their articulate and thought provoking responses to my comment.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that an individual landowner has the right to decide where a landfill may be built and the local government’s responsibility is only one of regulation once the landfill is built?
–Former Hoosier
Dear Partisan:
Your argument is thoughtful and well taken…not necessarily fully accepted, but understood nonetheless. I suppose I’m stuck on how far do allow rights and liberty to go? I guess I’ve always believed that beyond rights and liberty, we’re all part of a greater “social responsibility.” For example, I subscribe to the constitutional right to bear arms. And as a hunter, I’m constitutionally allowed to own and use a firearm. Does this mean that I should also be allowed to own a machine gun and be allowed to fire it unending in my backyard early on Sunday mornings? Well, under rights and liberty, sure…but is it the right thing to do? Probably not. Should I do it anyway to test my rights and liberty? I probably wouldn’t. And in that regard, it seems there is a social limit on how far reaching we allow rights and liberties to go.
Regarding law and liberty-this is a tough one…our laws were founded by virtue of our liberty, but our liberty is constrained by our laws. Smarter folks than me can ponder this one. I’m not sure I have an answer.
-Jay Falstad
And that wrapped up my direct involvement in the postings. I would however like to share a post by a good friend of mine that followed this last posting.
June 30th:
To me, there’s something fairly comforting in seeing fundamental issues of liberty debated in the days leading up to the 4th of July. It seems to prove the theories of spontaneous order within civil societies – that without outside prompting we seem to pick the right times to have these discussions.
Both Jay Falstad and “Partisan for Liberty ” have raised important issues and questions, and I’d held off on responding until today. But Mr. Falstad asks a fundamental question which I hope was merely rhetorical.
How far do we allow rights and liberty to go? Well, at their most basic level, the self-evident truth is that we’re endowed by our creator with rights that are inalienable. But to explain more fully, rights are limited when we cede them to government in the form of powers (carefully enumerated and themselves limited), and when the exercise of those rights negatively impacts or violates the rights of others.
In Mr. Falstad’s example, he speaks of owning and using a machine gun – but doesn’t go into any circumstantial detail. At the most abstract, say, a single, solitary, individual removed from any major town or city. If he were on a desolate piece of land, with no nearby neighbors, then in this most abstract sense there is no reason why he should be prevented from owning a machine gun or firing it to his heart’s content.
On the other hand, if he lives in a population center, where the flying bullets could harm his neighbors or their property, or where his actions could be considered threatening or menacing, then because their rights are violated (namely, their rights to be secure in their persons and possessions) we as a people can create a law to prevent that activity.
In fact, this is precisely why and how laws are created: all just laws are born out of the problems that arise when exercises of rights intersect.
We protect free speech, for instance. We protect the expression of all sorts of reprehensible ideas. But if that expression crosses the line into directly threatening an individual, or is defamatory, then the person who is threatened or who has been defamed has had his rights violated, and the law intercedes to protect him.
In a free society, “social responsibility” is only just when it is created out of the exercise of choice. One must freely choose to be responsible. But when it is created out of force or coercion, it leads us down a slippery slope. A society that takes that first step goes down a path in which groups or individuals force their views and judgment upon other groups or individuals.
This is precisely the kind of elitism that the Founders warned us against. This is why we aren’t a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic. The most basic building block of our society is the individual, and all decisions of the majority are balanced against that individual’s (or a group of individuals’) rights. The Founders were especially wary when it came to the right to own and enjoy private property, a prior subject here on the QACBuzz. The Founders recognized that private property was an essential element of liberty, and one that was particularly vulnerable to the abuse of power. The power to take private property has been referred to as “the despot’s power”, and the devastating effects of ill-protected property rights on political freedom and stability, as well as economic prosperity, have been well documented by such luminaries as Richard Pipes and Hernando DeSoto.
Knowing full well that at times, it would be necessary for government to take private property from individuals, the Founders created a three-prong program for ensuring that the rights of the property owner would be protected: first, the property would only be taken for a legitimate public use; second, due process would be accorded to the property owner; and finally, just compensation would be paid to the property owner.
They did this, in the immortal words of Justice Hugo Black, “to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.”
In other words, to balance out what the majority wants and ensure that an individual or minority group didn’t have their rights trampled upon. And this was not limited to aspects of physical appropriation or occupation. While government could hardly go on if, to some extent, it didn’t implicate private property rights, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, when regulation goes “too far” it too can be considered to have taken private property.
As we look towards next week’s celebration of American freedom, let’s keep in mind just what it is that makes us a free people. Let’s keep in mind the principles which gave rise to our revolution, and for which we have fought so long and hard to ensure. We cannot take those rights for granted, either through indifference or misunderstanding. And we have to recognize the importance of ensuring that those rights remain fully intact.
Please note, the above views are my own, and not representative of any organization I’m employed by, a member of, or an officer of.
-Andrew Langer, Centreville
Follow on Twitter
Add on Facebook
E-mail Me
Recent Comments