Posts
Warren Kinsella performs one of his drive-by intellectually confused smears against Randy Hillier’s and Scott Reid’s plan to enshrine property rights in the constitution. He provides a list of so called consequences so I figured that I would examine the validity of each claim.
Higher drug prices, in perpetuity, as Big Pharma will win eternal patent protections
Will they really? Patent laws are part of an intellectual property framework and in every jurisdiction in the world (including all the ones that already guarantee property rights) it is treated differently than other forms of property. Claiming that property rights will mean “eternal patents” is moronic. There is no way that the court would stretch the definition of property rights that far.
The loss of anti-pollution rules
This is absolutely not true. Actually a properly constructed property rights regime makes some anti-pollution laws redundant. If you dump garbage on my property I can sue you or have you arrested. At the same time I wouldn’t dump garbage on my own property because then I destroy it and lose its value. It is only when property rights are unclear or unprotected do we see really bad pollution. In cases that property rights do not help, as in air pollution, there is no way that property rights enforcement would interfere with pollution laws.
The end of new parks and the potential elimination of existing parks
He is just making stuff up. Firstly I guess he means by “end of new parks” that the government wouldn’t be allowed to just steal someone’s land and turn it into a park. This is hardly a negative. And hey! If the government wants to BUY my land to make a park I am certainly willing to discuss it. Secondly…how in the hell would property rights eliminate existing parks? Public parks are Crown lands, that is, it is owned by the government. How would property rights interfere with that?
Elimination of zoning rules designed to prevent neighbourhoods from being ruined – noise bylaws, giant homes, etc.
This is one of two of his points that have at least some bases in fact, but it is much more complicated than he is making it seem. The relationship between zoning laws and property rights is complex and nuanced. The justification for zoning laws is to avoid externalities that would hurt other people’s property from being damaged or “ruining” neighbourhoods. I am not sure that zoning laws are the best way to deal with such conflicting rights, but I am certain that the courts would keep this goal in mind. The most likely outcome is that the courts would put a restriction on zoning laws to prevent arbitrary rules such as not allowing patios. Such a restriction would be a massive improvement.
Friction with aboriginal peoples, with land claims being overturned and challenged
With the Caledonia incident in the back of your mind, ask yourself if it is really a horrible thing that the rights of every stakeholder in an issue are considered. Should relations with aboriginals be the only consideration when negotiating land claims? The rights of people that currently own, occupy, and use the land should not be ignored the way that it often is ignored. I suspect that native groups won’t like the rights of others to be considered (only their own rights matter) so this is the other point that has some basis in reality. But again avoiding friction should not be the government’s primary concern.
Discrimination against women in divorce settlements
Here is a fun challenge. Can anyone name me any jurisdiction in the world where the protection of property rights has led to discrimination against women? In fact divorce proceedings are already mostly about property rights. By getting married you are pooling your property and extending rights to your partner. The challenge in getting divorced is to split that property in a fair manner. Defining where people’s property rights are is a major part of this area of Family Law.
The challenge of labour laws, and potential end to collective bargaining
I have no idea where this claim even comes from. This seams about as reasonable as claiming that property rights make babies cry. I welcome anyone who wishes to speculate on how labour laws would be challenged by property rights (or how property rights make babies cry).
The loss of shorelines, and commercialization of public lands
The loss of shorelines? Where did it go? Who lost it? As for the commercialization of public lands, I assume he means private commercialization since the government commercializes public lands already. This makes no sense. How do property rights allow you to commercialize land that you do not own? Actually it does the exact opposite of that.
Warren Kinsella ends his smear by posting a picture of Randy Hillier under arrest. He was being arrested for an act of civil disobedience. I guess Kinsella would have considered Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. to be “lawless” as well. Civil disobedience is such an awful thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
And this clown is one of the leading lights in liberal philosophy and policy As Bugs Bunny says: "What a maroon!"
For those of you not conversant with Mr. Bunny's language, maroon is malapropism for moron.
Kinsella also believed that Rossi was a first class guy. He now says he is not.
His brilliant skills lead Rossi going from 14% down to 4% in the pop. vote.This even after a few candidates had dropped out of the race. So what does he do? He attacks him personally.
Why would this rambling be any different?
As I said in my comment to his site (who knows if it will be approved).. In all his intense research to come up with these conclusions, Warren seems to have missed looking at every Western democracy that has property rights.
Though Microsoft Yellowstone National Park certainly does back up his theory about parks. (*rolls eyes*)
Kinsella's comments range from absurd to bizarre,with nary a grain of truth anywhere in the mix.
If Kinsella was talented enough to produce a "Stairway To Heaven" with his garage band,I assume he'd have no trouble with a government confiscating it at some point as a "national treasure", like Joe Ghiz tried to do to the heirs of Lucy Maude Montgomery.
DMorris
Kinsella is tacitly acknowledging that "property rights" are an actual right. You would think that a hard-core Liberal, an untiring champion and defender of "Human Rights" would be on the battlefront fighting for recognition of one of the most fundamental of negative rights. Instead we get juvenile sophistry peppered with shameless ignorance.
The real reason any Liberal or Progressive argues against recognition of property rights is that it would put power back where it belongs, with the individual. That would deprive the ruling elites a stick with which to beat the rabble into submission.
True property rights would go a long way to curbing fascist tyrants like McGuinty and the HRCs.
Kinsella is still around....really?
I thought that guy had gone back to actually doing what he went to school for, being a lawyer.
But I digress.
Warren is a true disciple of that tired principle of using a lot of noise when you have a weak defence.
Enshrined property rights where purposely left out of the re-patriated constitution by (he whose name shall not be mentioned) because that measure would severly undermine any political movement whose goal was big nanny-state government.
Had it been enshrined from the outset, a great many so-called "constitutional challenges" to our laws would have never seen the inside of a court room.
Warren has selective memory about some things, this is just the latest example.
Twenty-five percent of my family's 800-acre century farm has been zoned "conservation", as per the Provincial Policy Statement on Land Use under the Planning Act. This land is now a de facto Provincial Park, featuring 6000 feet of waterfrontage on the St. Lawrence River. A certified land appraiser assessed the devaluation as in excess of one million dollars, and counting.
Without property rights, there is no compensation for "injurious affection". Actually, it's standard policy these days to outline within new legislation the government's intent to take private land without compensation (Clean Water Act - section 98; Greenbelt Act - section 19; etc.). Randy Hillier speaks for me. Kinsella is an insect.
We do have some enshrined property rights in the constitution, those being aboriginal title and rights.
If people are scared of the implication of constitutionally protected property rights, one should look to how they have protected various First Nations from the Federal and Provincial governments.
The Nisga'a in their Treaty even managed to get their lands with no underlying Crown Allodial title.
When it comes to protection from government, there is a lot that can be learned from court decisions relating to aboriginal title and rights by everyone.
Post a Comment