Fwd: Monarch saviors

Chuck Vaughn aa6g at aa6g.org
Tue Mar 9 00:12:58 EST 2004

Roger Kuhlman wrote:

> What however is "radical", is an absolutist property rights position 
> concerning land usuage. A landowner must act responsibly. He or she 
> can not do anything they want with the land they temporarily manage.

Nobody in their right mind is for absolute property rights. That would 
be the same as being for absolute individual rights. That would be 

I believe that property rights should be treated the same as individual 
rights, which is how I think is how the founding fathers intended them 
to be. They are inseparable. As with individual rights, your property 
rights end where someone else's begins. This means you cannot do 
anything on your property that adversely affects someone else's 

If we had these kinds of property rights the vast array of laws that 
try to micromanage property and vary so widely around the country would 
be unnecessary. There would be a broad base of commonly recognized laws 
regarding property.

Another key is that all property must be privately owned. Where in the 
U.S. Constitution does it say that the government can own property? I 
see the government owning property as no different than the government 
controlling some of your individual rights. We don't tolerate this for 
individual rights. Why do we tolerate it for property? I know this is a 
tough one to swallow and most of you can't imagine it any other way but 
the government has no constitutional right to own property.

Before I get 50 responses citing examples of why this can't work, 
search the net for the many ideas that others have already considered 
to address your concerns. There are many good ideas out there.

I have no illusions though that we'll have "real" property rights 
anytime soon. We're too bogged down in the quagmire of property laws we 
have now. It would take a quantum shift in the way we think about and 
treat property to restore such rights.

A final thought..... Today, if you own property on which an endangered 
species lives, it's the kiss of death for you property value. Why 
should this be so? Ownership of such property should be valued, like 
ownership of a rare coin or book. A rare species on your property 
should enhance the value of the property, not devalue it. But that's 
exactly what happens when we don't have real property rights. Sweeping 
and generalized government restrictions devalue the property. Real 
property rights would not allow an owner to destroy the species but 
allow for development in such a way to protect the species and generate 
income for the owner. There are many ways this could happen and it 
would vary widely depending on the circumstances. Potential new owners 
would know exactly what they were buying, something of value for now 
and in the future and a money making enterprise if they chose to run it 
that way. People who were interested in this sort of work would be the 
ones who bought these sorts of properties.

Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org>


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list