Once again, yet another daily example that shows without a doubt that you are simply not permitted to own land in America today. And this time, it's not the government taking land with perverted definitions of eminent domain. This one is about a hole in the ground.

Norm Enrique dug a hole in a yard that he thought he owned. The newest team of government enforcement agents, "Fire Officials," stopped him from digging the hole. And they are going to fine him and force him to PAY for digging the hole and require him to pay for someone else to fill the hole in -- on his own property.

Now feel free to complain that the man was endangering others. However, the only "others" that were endangered were those who VOLUNTARILY helped the man in his hole and those who illegally trespassed on his property.

Apparently in this country, it is illegal to endanger yourself on your own property. Well, that is, presuming you actually OWN property. You see, if it were legal to actually own property, as it used to be in this once-great country, this man could have pulled out his shotgun and told the Hole-Enforcement Police to get the hell off his land. Of course, then the police would have arrested the man for daring to defend his own property against the government.

Sorry, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me this is a free country or that I can own anything at all as long as this government is able to tell individuals what they can and cannot do on their own property, especially when it's "for your own good." Damn, how I yearn for freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

1 It has been my misfortune to sit through a law school property class, and I have this to report: one of the most frequently-used and time honored metaphors for property rights is the "bundle of sticks." That is, in the Anglo-American legal tradition, your ownership of real property is in fact a collection of rights that can be broken up and distributed amongst different people (incl. corporate organizations and government entities). And you do own something if you retain even one of those sticks. In this case, the guy definitely has an ownership interest the land, but it looks like ran afoul of governmental restrictions on use. If the government doesn't have the power to restrict use in order to protect employees, then all industrial safety regulations are out the window (which means a heck of a lot more 7-fingered and 1-armed working folk).

Posted by: Lance at June 16, 2006 01:49 PM (9THV+)

2 They didn't restrict the use because of employees, it's because they didn't like the hole. The government didn't say that the person could keep building the hole without employees, they FORCED him to pay for filling the hole back in against his will. And your bundle of sticks metaphor doesn't wory here. If the government can tell me that I can or cannot dig a hole on my property, what stick am I left holding? To say that I "own" my property as long as I do what government says it to say that I do NOT own the property. For example, if I give you a $100 bill and tell you that you cannot spend it, and that you can only spend it where and when I tell you, do you own that $100? Not in any reality I know of.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2006 01:59 PM (/k+l4)

3 I may have understood the government's argument, but it doesn't really change the analysis. I appreciate your $100 bill analogy, because I think it works. Suppose that, by a special act of the General Assembly, North Carolina gives you $100. It's yours, to do with as you please. But you can't buy drugs. Or sex with child prostitutes. Or use the money to put out a hit on your wife. The list goes on and on. So is that the same as saying that you don't own the $100? Is it the same as not being able to do anything with the money? No, of course not. There's all kinds of stuff you can do. And I can't legally take that money from you. It's yours, even if there's some stuff you can't do with it. The same is true with this guy and his bundle of sticks. He still has the power to sell his land. He can also pass it to others using his will. He can rent it out, or tear down his house and build another. He can charge admission, or sell the right to walk across it to get to the next block. Those are all sticks he still has. That's the broader point. If you want to talk about whether the restriction on giant-hole-digging is reasonable, there I'm not so sure. It seems clear to me that a 3-foot hole is no problem, and no occasion for government regulation. A 1,000-foot hole that creates the danger of your neighbor's property subsiding, is a problem, and for the sake of the neighbors I think government regulation is appropriate. Whether a 60-foot hole falls into the former category or the latter would depend on a lot of stuff (makeup of the land, proximity of neighbors, science that I don't understand, etc.).

Posted by: Lance at June 16, 2006 02:25 PM (9THV+)

4 I meant "I may have misunderstood...." in the first sentence of my last comment.

Posted by: Lance at June 16, 2006 02:32 PM (9THV+)

5 Continuing the $100 bill analogy -- in your example I don't own the $100 bill. Why? Because at any moment the government CAN take the $100 bill back. To make a valid comparison to property rights, in addition, to retain the "use" of the $100 bill, I would have to pay the government a few cents every year to keep the dollar bill. Using that argument, I could say that the slaves were actually freemen in the 1700s. You see, they were free to procreate, think whatever thoughts they wanted to, dance in their quarters, or any number of other things -- as long as they picked the cotton when they were told to.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2006 03:06 PM (/k+l4)

6 I'm going to skip the point about taxes, and I'm sure we disagree about that and we can deal with that in another thread. As for slavery, you're switching terms here. There's a name for that, but I can't recall it. When you're talking about beer, "free" means you don't pay for it. When you're talking about speech, "free" means unrestricted. When you're talking about slavery, "free" means "not subject to being a person owned by another." When the slaves were "freed," that didn't mean that they were free from paying taxes or free from the constraints of criminal liability, etc. It just meant that they were free from the institution of personal slavery. My point? Your "all or nothing" approach doesn't have much relationship to reality. Do you own a house? Why the heck did you spend a bundle of money on something you don't really own (using your own definition of "own")? Suppose you had a choice between being a slave or being free. Would you still choose the latter even if it didn't really mean "free from all external constraint"? Sure you would. Most everyone who has paid off the note on their car would say that they "own it," even though it's very well known that there's a ton of stuff they're not allowed to do with their car.

Posted by: Lance at June 16, 2006 03:27 PM (9THV+)

7 I'm not completely sure where the terms are different here. I think we just disagree on the definition of "own." In your last example, that's not true. There's nothing I cannot do with my car, on my property, that I own, unless it threatens another's rights. My rights to something, if I actually own it, end when they interfere with someone else's rights. It's as simple as that to me. If I cannot do something with an item, then no, I DO NOT own it. And that's my entire point with this post -- we do not own land in this country, only the government does.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2006 07:57 PM (acZAM)

8 Fair enough. So: how are you not in jail? Your definition of "own" is very different from the definition of that word as it's usually used in the law. And I think it's very different from what most people mean when they use it most of the time. What do you do when there's a clash between your views and the law? That's a serious and genuine question. So is this one: don't you "own" (my definition) a lot of stuff that you don't really "own" (your definition)? I'm thinking of things like cars, houses, cigarettes, cell phones (you can't use them in the hospital), etc.

Posted by: Lance at June 17, 2006 12:13 PM (ceP10)

9 Dammit, I have another question. You write "we do not own land in this country, only the government does." Where in the world is this not true? And when in human history has this not been true (substitute "King," "Emperor," "High Priests," whatever).

Posted by: Lance at June 17, 2006 12:15 PM (ceP10)

10 Wait a minute, now -- you just did the switch you said I couldn't do when I talked about slavery! You're also misapplying own -- if I can't use something on someone ELSE's property, that does not affect my ownership, because that is someone else's rights I'm treading on. In other words, I can own cigarettes because I can do anything I want with them on my own property. I can own a car because I can do anything I want with it on my own property. And where were people actually allowed to own property? In America, after the Declaration of Independence and before property taxes.

Posted by: Ogre at June 17, 2006 12:21 PM (acZAM)

11 Even in the US during the government's infancy the common law of nuisance was well established. North Carolina, like most states, simply took on the British common law (lock, stock, barrell) after the revolution. And England at the time was hardly a wild west libertarian free-for-all. Point taken about the cigarettes and cell phone, though. I've got to run (back online this afternoon), but I think I'm beginning to see the outlines of your zany (that's a friendly jab) outlook. So am I right to think that you'd be for the repeal of all laws forbidding prostitution as long as the prostitute is of the age and has the capacity to consent?

Posted by: Lance at June 17, 2006 01:58 PM (ceP10)

12 Interesting debate. Personally, I've given up on the thought that I actually own anything anymore since in the last 3 years it seems that the government, at various levels, can and will take it away when they feel like it or make it illegal. I just kind of rent everything.

Posted by: Contagion at June 17, 2006 04:26 PM (aGJp4)

13 Nuisance is a different issue. I continue to say that one person's right ends where another begins. But for me to dig a hole on my property, if I owned the property, the government could not tell me not to. The only people who would be at risk from harm from the hole are people who enter my property. There's no nuisance there. As for prostitution, I just don't know on that one. I think for health reasons, there might be a risk to others -- and therefore a nuisance. But I'm not sure.

Posted by: Ogre at June 17, 2006 09:44 PM (acZAM)

14 That's pretty much my point, Contagion, that you simply cannot own anything in this country today. I've not completely given up, because Don Quixote is my hero.

Posted by: Ogre at June 18, 2006 12:21 PM (acZAM)

15 So Ogre, if the sixty-foot hole did pose a danger to other people's property or to other people who don't enter the digger's property, you'd be ok with the state action here?

Posted by: Lance McCord at June 18, 2006 03:50 PM (ceP10)

Hide Comments | Add Comment