Get it Right: Life, Liberty, Property

What is property, and who can and cannot control it? Central Utah is grappling with the issues and the misconceptions. When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence he memorialized "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The last was a commonly used alternate term for "property" among colonials. He understood property; that without the right to own it and choose its use, we have no freedom.

If we have no property, we cannot use our rights. We need meetinghouses for worship. For freedoms of speech, press and assembly we need printing presses, transportation, food and apparel. We have no safety without weapons and no privacy without homes. As the ultimate, our lives are our fundamental property. Founder John Adams spelled it out: "All men are born free and independent, and have ... unalienable rights ... of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property."
It is popular for government to take or control property through taxation, redistribution or regulation of property rights. It may be popular, but it isn't right and it isn't constitutional. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, explained it: "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort." The Fifth Amendment locks property ownership in place for good reason; when you control a person's property, you control him. Take a man's food and he'll obey to eat; take his home, and he'll comply to give his family shelter. Founder Alexander Hamilton minced no words: "... power over a man's subsistence amounts to power over his will."
Governments are formed to protect property. When they take or unnecessarily control property, they violate their own creed. This is one of the calamities of so-called "anti-discrimination" laws: government controls property by dictating its use.
Inevitably, community needs and property rights collide. When people live together they must set rules, and a tradeoff has to take place. The people agree to give up some independence and accept some laws so the community can cooperate. The long poles in the tent are fairness, necessity and protection. The rules must be fair for all, as minimal as possible to take the least amount of freedom, and private property must be secure in the owners' hands.
Property ownership has taken a bad rap in the public eye as we have embraced socialist ideas. We too often think that everybody has to have equal "stuff." Not so, that isn't what property ownership is about. There are no rules that say stuff has to be equal, in fact, it cannot be equal. We have different talents, skills, work ethics, goals, wants, needs, energy levels and priorities. They determine the property we acquire and there is no way to make that equal. Our hallmark American equality means equality in justice, before the laws and in the courts and before God. Beyond that, we are each in charge of ourselves and the property we acquire as we apply personal effort.
As government falls into the trap of trying to create equality it becomes the agent of inequality, as it takes from one to give to another. That never works. One group becomes resentful, the other becomes dependent. Sooner or later the whole property issue turns into a mess. That cycle has produced unanimous failure throughout earth's history; every nation that starts the give-everybody-equal-stuff thing fails.
One beauty of our Constitution is that it supports community law. We set our laws to keep government as close to the people as possible to stay as free as possible. This is why we must keep and protect our caucus system, where ordinary citizens remain in control. We must protect private property from laws such as the proposed anti-discrimination legislation usurps owner control of property. Life, liberty, property -- three pillars of freedom enshrined 237 years ago in the Declaration of Independence; three values for Utah Valley. Insist on property rights here at home. Insist that local laws retain your control over your property. It's the important thing to do.

Reverse discrimination

Provo is reveling in political correctness with last week's announcement that Hal Miller and Sterling Beck, Provo city councilmen, plan an "anti-discrimination" bill for Provo. They say it's good for business. Is it, however, good for the rights of those who own property in Provo?

Nationwide, the ball is rolling furiously in favor of required acceptance of alternate sexuality, spawning legislation in its path. While often driven by compassion, this legislation is unconstitutional, and outside the responsibility of government at any level. Anti-discrimination legislation favors the few over the many -- also a constitutional violation. Twelve cities in Utah, including Salt Lake City and Ogden have already embraced this social-engineering-become-law.
Consider Provo resident John, whose years of hard work, thrift, and sacrifice have provided for him a house with an attached rental unit. For decades he's protected, repaired and tended the house and yard. His investment has been considerable, consistent and beneficial to the community. When he rents, he checks the references of applicants to make sure they pay their rent, don't play loud music, and likely won't damage the premises. These people will share his roof and affect his investment, the physical center of his heart and security. He has earned his property through his efforts.

Enter anti-discrimination legislation. John may no longer be able to freely select his renters. If those asking to rent his property make same gender choices in private relationships, their choices trump any checks he normally makes on payment practices, music choices or property protection; he would be required to accept them as tenants. Their private activities could override his decades of effort.
Why should Provo be justified in requiring partner preference as a criterion for renters? Every individual has the right to choose his private life, but government errs if it places a property owner's rights at the mercy of another's personal choices. This concept is the foundation of free governments, as voiced by William Blackstone, whose brilliant legal mind helped lay the foundation for modern constitutional freedoms. He said, "So great ... is the regard of the law for private property that it (government) will not authorize the least violation of it ..." Just as every person has the right to his relationships, every property owner has the right to choose those who use his property; it is his, and no law is constitutional or ethical that removes his choices. Giving rights to one group, based on their private preferences, while taking them from another -- property owners -- is discrimination. The intent is not to take rights from anyone based on their personal choices; it is to insist that the rights of all must be honored.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Beck, as outlined in the November 22 Daily Herald article titled "Anti-discrimination law considered," want to bring anti-discrimination "out of the shadows" and attract outside businesses. If you want to avoid discrimination, gentlemen, don't discriminate against thousands of property owners by taking away their agency -- by requiring universal, unquestioned access to housing for one small group through government force. No one -- repeat, no one of any persuasion on any topic, pro or con -- is entitled to universal, unquestioned housing access. It's unnecessary in a free market, where a variety of landlords and a variety of applicants make housing available to all. The political correctness of anti-discrimination is poorly reasoned; it may be "the thing to do" but it doesn't eliminate discrimination, it re-directs and enlarges it.
Every property owner in Provo -- indeed, in the state -- should protest this, as misguided policies often snowball. If you believe your property rights predominate over the personal partner preferences of a few, please tell Misters Beck and Miller. While their intention is compassion, as stated in an email to me from Hal, their perceptions are one-sided and misdirected. Contact Hal Miller at (801) 691-5737, halmillerprovo3@gmail.com. Reach Sterling Beck at (801) 472-3160, sterling@sterlingbeck.com. Please speak up. If you don't, or they don't listen, you can wave your property rights goodbye.