I think this story from the Register Guard brings up a great point about private property rights.

Autzen Stadium South

Complaint takes aim at big ‘O’ on Autzen

The city will hold a hearing on a permit issue involving the tall, bright yellow letter
A Fairmount Hill woman is trying to get a three-story “O” removed from the south side of Autzen Stadium.

And she’s spurred action from city of Eugene sign regulators because the university didn’t apply for a building permit before putting the sign up — or for an exception that would allow the sign to be eight times larger than city zoning rules allow.

This wrestling over the big yellow “O” has gone on behind the scenes for more than a year. Fairmount Hill resident McKay Sohlberg lost in the first round in March when the Eugene planning director said the sign could stay. But Sohlberg has appealed and will take her case before a hearings officer on May 13.

The “O” sign rises like a neon moon over the tops of deciduous trees as seen from Sohlberg’s high, south-side home.

[...]

After receiving complaints, the city gave the university two choices: Immediately take the sign down or apply for an exception to the city sign rules and get a belated building permit — and pay double permit fees as a penalty for not applying in the first place. The university won an initial round in March when the Eugene planning director ruled the sign did merit an exception to the code. But Fairmount resident Sohlberg hired an attorney and filed a next-level appeal to a hearings officer.

The hundreds of pages of documents submitted by the university and its agents to the city do not include an explanation for why the university would hang a three-story-tall sign without addressing the city’s sign code or obtaining a building permit. The UO’s sign contractor, ES&A Sign and Awning Co., is a 44-year-old company with a West Coast reach and a reputation for top-flight work, including putting up signs for Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend, Market of Choice and Hayward Field.

[...]

“The huge lemon-yellow sign is a beacon on an already impressively large structure,” she wrote in a letter to the city. “I love the ‘O’ on my sweatshirt, am a Duck fan, but I don’t want to stare at this immense sign from my house. … Just because the community likes the ‘product’ being promoted in this case, doesn’t mean that the sign should be allowed to stay.”

Sohlberg, a UO associate professor of communications disorders and sciences, declined comment for this story.

Her neighbor, Babette Jones, shares Sohlberg’s concern that the view is getting cluttered. Right now, two cranes associated with the basketball arena construction are in view.

“I certainly understand the neighbors,” she said. “They bought these homes and have nice views to look at. I don’t particularly think the ‘O’ is a nice view,” she said.

Read the whole article

Now, wait just a minute.

First of all – consider all the silly hoops that the Stadium had to go through to do something with their own property. This is exactly the kind of legal nightmare you get when you start letting the City determine what someone can do with their own property.

Secondly, I agree that Sohlberg bought her home. I’m also fairly certain she did not buy Autzen Stadium, nor did she buy a guarantee that Autzen Stadium wouldn’t do something with their own property that she might not like very much. Neither did the rest of the people in Fairmount Hill. They are certainly free to do so, if they choose. I don’t see anyone stopping them.

How the majority of people feel about the ‘O,’ shouldn’t really factor into this story. The over-arching question here is, why should Fairmount Hill have the right to decide what Autzen Stadium chooses to do with their own property?

Her initial complaint mentioned: “If left unchallenged, the “O” could set a precedent for future out-of-scale signs on other UO building projects.” Why does Sohlberg’s vision override the vision of the University, or Autzen Stadium? Also, I would counter that if Sohlberg wins this case, it will set precedent that a majority opinion gets to decided what a private entity can and cannot do with it’s own property. What happens when the majority of other neighborhoods determine that Fairmont Hill should be flattened in the name of some ‘noble vision?’ And if, in the end, it’s just a majority vote, does Autzen Stadium only get one vote on what it can do with its own property?

Thomas Sowell took this issue on concerning his own home with a view (be sure to read his entire article):

When I was house-hunting, one of the things that struck me about the house that I eventually settled on was the fact that there were no curtains or shades on the bathroom window in the back. The reason was that there was no one living on the steep hillside in back, which was covered with trees.

Since I don’t own that hillside, someday someone may decide to build houses there, which means that the bathroom would then require curtains or shades and our back porch would no longer be as private.

Fortunately for me, local restrictive laws currently prevent houses from being built on that hillside.

Also fortunately for me, my continued criticisms of such laws in this column have not made a dent in the local authorities.

But suppose that someday either the courts will strike down land use restrictions or local officials will respect property rights. Maybe I will be long gone by then and the new owner of this house will be angry at the diminished privacy — and consequently the diminished value of the house, caused by the building of houses on the hillside.

Would that anger be justified?

The fundamental question is: What did the homeowner buy? And would a change in laws deprive him of what he paid for?

Since the house and the wooded hillside are separate properties, the homeowner never paid for a hillside wooded in perpetuity.

If whoever owns the hillside finds that his property is worth more with houses on it, what right does the adjacent homeowner have to deprive the other owner of the benefits of building on that hillside or selling it to a builder?

True, my house was worth more because of the privacy provided by the wooded hillside. But there was no guarantee that the hill would remain wooded forever. Whoever buys the house buys its current privacy and the chance — not a certainty — that the hill will remain wooded.

If a homeowner wanted a guarantee that the hill would remain as is, he could have bought the hill. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit.

Read the rest

I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that the dispute over the Autzen ‘O’ is basically the same argument. If Sohlberg and the residents of Fairmount Hill dislike what Autzen does with its property – perhaps they should consider purchasing the Stadium, rather than trying to strong-arm them by force of government.

Not to mention, I’m absolutely certain we wouldn’t hear the end of this if the owner of Autzen Stadium was trying to get a City ordinance to bulldoze Fairmount Hill…

UPDATE: Here is a screenshot of the view from Fairmount Hill, hat-tip KEZI (click image to watch their video coverage of the story):

McKay Sohlberg's view of Autzen Stadium

UPDATE: This just in from the Register Guard:

A Fairmount resident has withdrawn her appeal of a city decision allowing the University of Oregon to place a large “O” on the south side of Autzen Stadium without first meeting government requirements. The O is eight times larger than the city zoning rules allow.

The UO did not apply for a building permit, or an exception to the zoning rules, before putting the letter up, and Fairmount Hill resident McKay Sohlberg filed a complaint with the city.

Eugene’s planning director ruled in March that the sign did merit an exception to the rules. Sohlberg filed an appeal to that decision, which was to be heard today. The city planning department said the appeal had been withdrawn and this afternoon’s scheduled hearing cancelled.

With the withdrawal of the appeal, city officials said, “The planning director’s decision approving the Autzen Stadium sign variance is effective.”

Allow me a victory image:

Glad that the city basically sided with Autzen on this one, though it would have been nice for them to give more reasoning. Otherwise – the stadium could just remove the sign and paint the same sized ‘O’ on the stadium. Makes you wonder what does or does not merit an exception to “the rule”. What is the rule, and who decides it?

Go Ducks!

Let’s now take a look at Socialism as an economic philosophy. 19th century philosopher Ayn Rand had some strong words to further define socialism and its nature as an economic and governmental theory:

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
- From The New Intellectual

In order to fully understand Rand’s view – we need to clearly define ‘private property.’ In plain terms, Private property is essentially the results (or wages) of an individual’s personal labor. Furthermore, an individual’s labor is basically the sum of a person’s mind, since all that we do creatively and productively is the result of our own mind making free choices to take actions. Therefore, the crucial question each person must ask is, “Does a free individual have the right to the product of their own mind?” Take a moment to internalize this question, because it is simply too easy to think of ‘individuals’ as numbers.

Do you have the right to the product of your mind?

In my view, if you truly believe in personal human liberty – you must answer this question: Yes.

This is where a proper view of taxes becomes important. Part of the problem in America today is that people don’t really view taxes for what they truly are: unpaid labor for the state. Most people are so used to paying their taxes (many times not even seeing them, as they are deducted automatically) that this reality is blurred. You and I pay a certain percentage of our annual wages in tax. What this really means is that we spend that percentage (if you are middle-class, that’s about 30%) of our year working directly for the state and not ourselves or our families. Furthermore – you and I don’t really get to decide what happens with the labor we do for the state. Sure – we get to vote about this or that spending bill from time to time – but at that level, we are so far removed from any real control over how the product of our minds is put to use that it is almost negligible. More realistically, the product of our labor is handed to a government official who then gets to decide what is in our, and society’s best interest.

The conservative rejects this idea totally. And I must point out here that Conservatives aren’t against taxation. What we reject is the idea that a government bureaucracy can possibly know better what is in your personal interest, let alone an entire society of persons.

Rand further elaborates:

“The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in ‘society as a whole,’ i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia – or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.”

- From “The Monument Builders“

So, what about Economic Equality?

Socialism seeks to make all people economically equal through the idea of fairness. In other words, socialism seeks to share the wealth, or create a state of ‘shared prosperity‘ as this is seen to be more fair and compassionate. During the recent campaign, President Barack Obama, then candidate Obama made the remark, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” Of course, most people (including conservatives) view sharing with those who are less fortunate, as a positive thing. However, it is important to remember we are talking about a governmental philosophy, not personal kindness and charity.  Under socialism, in order to create fairness or shared prosperity, this requires taking the labor of some, and giving it to others. This is, as Rand said, the denial of individual property, and ultimately the control of the product of an individual’s labor.

Socialism is the denial that you have the right to the product of your own mind.

Conservatives believe that this idea is in direct conflict with liberty. How is it fair to take by force the rights of some to promote ‘fairness’ for others? How is this ‘fair’ for those who are more productive? Is that not cyclical reasoning? If you have no right to your own labor and the product of your mind – do you really have the right to your own life?

Furthermore - is it not immoral to justify taking a larger percentage of an individual’s labor and mind, simply because they are more productive than someone else? Not to mention – who among men has the wisdom and the right to decide who is wealthy and who is not? (Note that in contrast, the free market does not discriminate based on wealth, race, sex, status, or any other factor.)

The simple fact is that human rights, and property rights go hand in hand. You cannot have one, without the other. Any governmental philosophy that violates the fundamental right to property is a threat to liberty, even if it’s intentions are noble. Again – Ayn Rand elaborates:

“There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism – and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy – that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights.’ No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel.”
- From “The Monument Builders“

(emphasis mine)

Furthermore – the idea that an individual has no right to the product of their own labor is totally at odds with the foundational philosophy of liberty in America.

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
-James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

“A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

“…the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
-John Adams

Conservatives agree with this idea that private property, though not the expressed goal of life, is essential to individual rights and freedoms. Though the stated intent of Socialism seems noble, we reject Socialism as an economic philosophy because it substitutes a realistic view of human nature (people are not the same, and thus cannot be made to be the same, economically, socially, or otherwise) for an utopian philosophy (that an authoritarian governing few have the wisdom, authority, and right to legislate ‘fairness’ upon individuals lives).

Also – Socialism requires authoritarian control of the product of some people’s minds, and is thus in total conflict with the liberties of man. In a free society YOU have the right to YOUR productivity – under Socialism, the State and the ‘collective good’ have the right to YOUR productivity. Thus, from the conservative prospective, socialism is ultimatley not liberty, but slavery to the state. (I have to also note here that I find it somewhat contradictory that most people who look positively at socialism, consider themselves ‘liberal’ – as socialism implies a far more authoritarian governing body than say, a fairly libertarian capitalist system. Mark Levin rightly points out in his book Liberty and Tyranny, that a more appropriate name for this view would be, ‘Statist,’ rather than liberal.) Furthermore, even if it weren’t immoral, conservatives reject the notion that a small group of elected officials can possibly comprehend what would be in the best interest of you as a citizen.

President Lincoln adequately summed up these concepts:

“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name–liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names–liberty and tyranny.”

-Abraham Lincoln, 1864

If you wish to learn more about Economic Freedom – please watch or listen to Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. This will provide you with a decent overview of the foundations of economic liberty. Also, I strongly recommend reading Frederic Bastiat’s The Law.

In part 3 I will be further discussing the idea that Socialsm’s form of government is in conflict with a democratic republic – and takes on the form of an oligarchy, ultimately resulting in a ‘soft tyranny’.

This is a good thing to keep in mind as we discuss ideas like Capitalism and Socialism. When you feel angry about rich and wealthy people – don’t forget that they don’t just stuff their money in mattresses (though they certainly are free to do so). They invest that money in businesses, buy houses, and build things. This investment employs a vast amount of talent from all sorts of people.

While some people with wealth may be motivated by greed – this does not justify jealousy, coveting, and the demonizing of all people with wealth (one of the foundations of Marxism). Nor does it justify stealing from those (by governmental force through unfair taxation) to redistribute that wealth to people who did not rightfully earn it. Remember – most people with wealth did not steal it. They offered a product or service that someone else valued more than their own dollars, and then chose voluntarily to trade for. If we wish to value freedom as a people, we have no right to then turn around and confiscate the property of the wealthy that they earned by trading fairly.

One of the foundational rights of a free people is the right to the wages of their own labors (more commonly referred to as the right to private property). This is the core of Capitalism. All other systems, in one from or another, deny private property, and end in collective slavery to the State (government coerced collectivism).

I will expand on these thoughts in part two of my study on Rejecting Socialism (be sure to read Part 1 Here, if you haven’t already). It is taking me a while to write, not only because I have been busy – but also because I want to make sure that I am thorough and fair. Be sure to keep checking back!