You might think you have the freedom to own land in North Carolina today. If you do, you are incorrect. You do not own land, the government does. You may only rent that land and use it as the government directs. If you disobey them, you will go to jail. Can anyone explain to me how that is freedom?

First example: There's a church in Charlotte that has been there for hundreds of years. They had a very old parking lot -- concrete with numerous potholes -- you could barely drive over the ground it was so rough. They decided to repave the lot so people could actually use it.

In the middle of the lot there was a space about the size of a parking space that had a curb around it and a mostly dead tree in the space. Rather than pay the extra money to redo that spot, and because they wanted an extra parking space, they paved over that spot. Unfortunately, they didn't ask permission of the royal government of Charlotte.

Now the city has ordered them to replace the tree. Why? Because the ruling class in Charlotte didn't give them permission to remove it. If it were their land, they could remove a dead tree at will. Unfortunately, it's NOT their land. They are being forced to pay for a renovation of the lot and a new tree that has to be exactly the same size as the old tree. That's just wrong.

A second example comes from Cumberland County. A person owns 149 acres of farmland and wants to build on it. The royals there will not let them. The ruling class in North Carolina has representative government backwards -- government is supposed to provide services for the people, NOT tell people what services they will provide.

There was freedom in this country once, long ago. I'm not sure if it will ever return.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:45 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Royals"? Try democratically elected officials. Ogre, you ought to try to learn to deal with the fact that you share your town, your county, your state, and your country with others, and that means you can't have whatever you want whenever you want it. Hypothetical: suppose we were in NYC instead of NC. And suppose, as may be the case, that we really enjoy a good cigar on occasion. Would you be complaining on your blog that you're not allowed to smoke cigars on subways?

Posted by: Lance at May 22, 2006 01:09 PM (ceP10)

2 "Democratically Elected?" Sure, like Saddam and Communists worldwide. Know what the VAST majority of ballots will look like in the fall in North Carolina (about 90% because I can't calculate all county-level elections): Vote for ONE of the following: [ ] Incumbent Politician [ ] Write-In Candidate that will be ignored unless you jump through dozens of hoops and then will probably be ignored, too. Call that a Democratically-Elected leader if you like, but I'm not buying it. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's good, nor should I follow it, nor should I not complain about it. And for your example, there's no valid comparison except in the mind of those opposed to freedom -- I am supposed to be able to own land, I don't own a subway car.

Posted by: Ogre at May 22, 2006 02:04 PM (/k+l4)

3 Taking your last point first, both of the cases you cite are about what people are doing with their land, not their ownerhsip of it. You're allowed to own cigars, too. About half of the NC House seats will be opposed in November, as will most of the seats in the state Senate. I won't argue that balot refor is needed, but comparing US officials to Saddam? C'mon, that's a bit much. In pre-war Iraq armed guards watched you vote, so Saddam came away with 99.9% of the vote. Things simply aren't like that here. You've moved from critique to wild accusation.

Posted by: Lance at May 22, 2006 04:30 PM (ceP10)

4 A cigar is land? Huh? How is that? When one person infringes on the rights of others, that's when government is supposed to step in. Me cutting down a tree on my property does not infringe on your rights -- unless you subscribe to the current thought of government in Charlotte -- where government owns, literally, everything and I own nothing. Half the House seats will be opposed in November? Perhaps in name, but not in reality. I just posted the 2004 election results of the Senate -- on paper 37 seats were "opposed," but only five had any real opposition. I've got similar numbers for the House. I'm not comparing the armed guards of Saddam, just the election. In the "election" for him there was exactly one choice -- vote Saddam or vote for no one. That's the choice I face in November -- select the person that's been appointed to run or choose no one.

Posted by: Ogre at May 22, 2006 04:59 PM (/k+l4)

5 My point with the cigar is that whether you own something and what you can do with it are distinct, if not entirely separable, questions. You can own a cigar, but there are certain places where you can't smoke it. You can own a gun, but you're not allowed to fire it into the air on New Years Eve. You can own a piece of land, but if it's zoned "residential" you can't build a McDonalds on it. Such is the nature of law. Here's something we agree on: you wrote "Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's good, nor should I follow it, nor should I not complain about it." Word. But I didn't take your post to be about the quality of town's rationale for the tree regulation; it seems to me that you're questioning the authority of the community to have a tree regulation. You're not talking here about whether the tree law should be different, or even making an argument that under the NC or federal Constitutions the law is impermissible. You seem to take it for granted that the law is the immoral construction of a corrupt elite. It may be (many laws are). But your post assumes the point; it doesn't argue the point. Here's something else that we agree on (again): it should be easier for people to get on to the ballot, and elections generally should be more open. But the tree thing isn't an example of a challenge to ownership; it's a challenge to use. And you might consider the possibility that the people of Charlotte (or whatever government is involved) might have a good reason for making a rule that forbids landowners from doing certain things with their trees.

Posted by: Lance at May 22, 2006 09:15 PM (ceP10)

6 I still claim it's not valid to compare shooting a gun with owning land. If we do not have the right to own private property, which includes all things on top of or below that property, then we have no rights at all. If any body of government is permitted to regulate the growing of trees on private property, there are zero rights retained by the people at all because in order for the government to be able to regulate something, the owner cannot own the property at all. It is a mindset that does claim that all trees belong to one great collective and only those with superior vision (the government) can determine who and where such trees may exist, regardless of any claims of ownership by individuals. That is where the current laws and government are simply wrong, no matter how many people agree with them. You might find 100,000 people in Charlotte that all agree I should not cut down a tree in my yard. However, if I do own my yard, I can cut the tree down. If I do not own my yard, I cannot cut it down -- by those 100,000 people forcing their will on me.

Posted by: Ogre at May 22, 2006 09:28 PM (blszc)

7 But man, if there were some way to relax ballot rules, I'd be all over that one! Not likely in this current environment, however.

Posted by: Ogre at May 22, 2006 09:29 PM (blszc)

8 There is a distinction to be made between real estate and personal property, but the point I'm making applies to both: government can regulate what you own. You write: "in order for the government to be able to regulate something, the owner cannot own the property at all." That's so far from what's generally accepted as true in Anglo/American law that it's... well, it's really far. If what you're saying is true, then all zoning laws are history, all building codes (including the ones that require homes to be more hurricane-resistant in Florida and more earthquake-resistant in California) are history, and cities and towns would find running sidewalks, power lines, and sewers near impossible. If, on the other hand, some regulation of real property is permissible, then I don't see how we can talk about the validity of the Charlotte ordinance without a discussion of its purposes and application. PS I'm enjoying this discussion. You should come argue with us at BlueNC.com once in a while. I'm sure you won't agree with most of what our authors write, and I can't promise that all of our commenters will be reasonable, but I'd appreciate you keeping us honest.

Posted by: Lance at May 23, 2006 04:58 PM (ceP10)

9 You are indeed clearly outlining where we disagree -- and it's on a very fundamental, philosophical level. This country was founded on an idea that had never been tried in all of recorded history. That primary idea was the idea of property rights and ownership. It said that indeed, if one man actually owned his land and was not directly harming another, it was his land. So yes, under that premise, which I strongly believe in, all zoning laws should be gone and all building codes are unconstitutional. If you look throughout history, all zoning and code laws are recent inventions -- the founding fathers never would have dreamed of telling people what to make their houses out of. I realize this is certainly impractical in much of today's world, as you mention -- but the correct solution (in my mind, obviously) is not MORE government regulation and use, but less. For example, the building codes in Florida are in place because the government will pay for anyone's house that is destroyed. That's wrong. Instead of the government telling people how to build their houses to ensure the government doesn't pay out money, the government shouldn't pay out the money at all and let the people build what they want. Perhaps I shall stop over BlueNC, but you know it's going to get ugly...

Posted by: Ogre at May 23, 2006 05:07 PM (/k+l4)

10 I'm always skeptical of sentences that begin "This country was founded on..." I think the delegates in Philadelphia found plenty to disagree on. I also think that they drafted the Constitution in a very different world in which we find ourselves. And if they'd wanted real estate to be inviolable, they had a chance to write it down. I agree, though, that we've reached the fundamental grounding of our disagreement. I've enjoyed this conversation, and I'm sure we'll do it again!

Posted by: Lance at May 24, 2006 03:04 AM (ceP10)

11 I've been reading a number of ancient and old philosophers and I'm seeing where the basic differences lie between peoples and how that's reflected in today's political battles -- and I don't see any possible resolution because of the very basic differences. I think we should split the country up -- maybe into 50 separate entities where each one can make up their own rules...

Posted by: Ogre at May 24, 2006 11:53 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment