Note: this is the second in a series of short commentaries highlighting the perils of minarchy, that seemingly necessary governmental evil that even at its most basic and minimal level becomes ever expanding and routinely fails to live up to the lofty ideals of representative government, always to the peril of individual liberty.
Part 1 can be found here.
Incrementally, the state whittles away property rights under the guise of the common good, casting aside voluntary contracts in lieu of a collective, political ownership wherein an individual theoretically owns property, but government will dictate what can be done on it.
Earlier this year, Colorado HB 19-1050 was signed into law. As is the case with most legislation, the title given is phrased to foster the impression that what is being proposed is merely a guideline and is full of so much common sense goodness, that no one could possibly be opposed to it. Think of the Patriot Act, for instance, any opposition would clearly be unpatriotic, right? Of course, that is classic government doublespeak; terminology deliberately phrased to mislead the public. HB 19-1050 is no different as the title of the bill is as follows:
CONCERNING THE PROMOTION OF WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ON PROPERTY SUBJECT TO MANAGEMENT BY LOCAL SUPERVISORY ENTITIES.
You see? Government is just trying to promote water-efficient landscaping, nothing to see here! I can hear the objections already. What is wrong with using government to lead the people to a better, more environmentally friendly future? If it were merely a suggestion, a guidance pamphlet from “those who know best,” perhaps one could stomach it to some extent, but the reality of the legislation is that it is about something bigger. The legislation indicates that, “an association shall not prohibit the use of xeriscape or drought-tolerant vegetative landscapes to provide ground covering to a property.” What this really means is the state can overrule a voluntary contract among individual property owners.
When everything, with respect to the environment, becomes controlled, regulated and monitored by government, what recourse does one have should something disastrous befell an individual’s property on account of an adjacent property owner’s actions, be they a public or private entity? If all the adjacent property is governed and controlled by myriad overlapping regulations, forcibly imposed on property owners, one’s ability to sort out the mess and confer liability becomes an arduous task. If one is adjacent to public lands, it would be tremendously difficult to sue the government through the court system because that system is set up to protect the government, not the individual. A system of private property would provide the owner with legal rights against anyone who may induce harm against that property.
Another problem with an overarching governmental political interference, with respect to environmental regulations, is that it is inevitable that the political winds will shift and support for certain types of regulations will come and go. This can be evidenced most explicitly during the energy crises of the 1970’s, where, in response to the OPEC oil embargo Congress suspended the National Environmental Protection Act in order that the Alaskan Pipeline might be built. Add to that, as summarized in this FEE.org article, “this was the same government which held energy prices down during the 1970s and thereby stimulated energy use in the U.S. While spending billions to encourage energy conservation with their right hand, government simultaneously ‘encouraged’ consumption, through price controls, with their left hand.” It should come as no surprise that government never lets a good crisis go to waste.
A private property scenario eliminates uncertainty and provides powerful incentive to conserve resources in order to increase long term value to future owners and in the short term, this conservation will bring value to the current owner. The Minarchists’ Revenge is the destruction of this potential. From the seemingly small and insignificant infringements at the most local of levels, come overarching government regulations that can be changed on a whim at a moments notice to satisfy the latest political emergency. It’s baby steps, it’s incremental, it’s ever-expanding and it’s the logical conclusion of minarchy.
