Machan's Musings - Trying To Have That Cake And Eat It Too
by Tibor R. Machan
One of my colleagues in the early 70s had been dabbling in real estate and finally bought a nice historical building in the middle of this little town. He not only liked to earn some income from his thoughtful investments in local buildings but also enjoyed the fact that he was instrumental in preserving a bit of the history of the town as he did so.
No sooner had he bought his piece of history, however, than my colleague had to face the city bureaucracy that wanted him to both preserve the building intact and to renovate it to conform with all sorts of government regulations. As such, of course, the historical nature of the building would be wiped out. That would remain but a façade, a shadow of what history actually left for us to witness and contemplate.
More recently I read that the State of California is about to enact a law that would demand that all classic cars be fully equipped with the most up-to-date anti-pollution devices. Some of these cars would, of course, be completely debilitated by such a requirement, given that their engines and adjacent machinery simply haven’t the capacity to handle modern catalytic converters and other anti-pollution devices. (This is one reason, one may suppose, that the late night NBC-TV comedian Jay Leno has joined those who oppose this measure. He collects late-model cars and drives some of them regularly, something he would have to give up if the law went into effect.)
Of course, this is a classic case of the clash of special interests—those who wish to engage in historic preservation and those who want to impose on all of us pristine pure clean air. Since the government has practically annexed everything owned by us that some sizable constituency is interested in, it is now imposing its various wishes and whims on how these things must be handled. While it wants to please the historical preservation enthusiasts, it also wishes to appease all those who insist that everything old be replaced with something new and up-to-date so as not to contribute to anything adversely affecting the environmental lobby or the sensibilities of other constituents.
One of the great benefits of the right to private property is that people can know wherein lies their authority to do what they want. If such private property rights were respected and protected by the legal system, some could upgrade their belongings to their heart’s content, while others could insist on keeping things as they used to be. And there could be all gradations in between, too—with folks who just want to make a few adjustments, others who want to upgrade almost completely, and so forth.
But with the government getting into everything these days, this option does not exist. Everything must be dealt with in line with whatever the political authorities concoct, which is usually some impossible compromise that nobody wants (because it is decided on via the "democratic process").
A wonderful aspect of a free society is the variety it makes possible in how people live their lives. Some will love modern paintings, some the classics, and some another style entirely—there are plenty to go around, that’s for sure. The same can be observed in music—my cable TV carries about 30 different music programs, each satisfying the tastes and preferences of some of its customers. We see this same in other areas that are relatively free of government meddling, such as book and magazine publishing, movie making and so on.
Only when the government has come in to take over some realm and make it of public concern—a matter of "the public" interest, as if there really were much that fits that bill—do we find incessant conflict, a sort of war of all special interests against all, consuming the public agenda.
Yet another merit of the free society, with its strictly limited government, is that these battles would disappear—just look at how peacefully all the 4200 religious organizations in this country manage to live with each other given how government is barred from meddling in their affairs and they can withdraw to their private property, their churches, temples or mosques.
Discuss this Article (1 message)
|
