| PROPERTY RIGHTS |
| I wonder if the old song from the sixties was the first nail in the coffin of property rights. The legal system has permitted a shift from the wild west days of trespassing was punishable with a shotgun filled with salt rock to the current attitude. The rock salt was a good idea for several reasons, 1) rock salt hurts when it gets imbedded in the skin, 2) the rock salt will dissolve over time and leave no permanent injuries, 3) the trespasser couldn't complain because the courts would have sent him to jail due to the overwhelming evidence of being caught in the act of committing a crime. Let me see if I can explain the current attitude a little more clearly so that comparisons can be drawn. First, if a burglar breaks into your house, don't injure the burglar, you must kill the burglar. Why? Because a dead burglar can't claim that he was just passing through, or the force was excessive, or the injury has caused permanent damage and limited his future career options. - The police would prefer that you cower in a closet while this burglar paws his way through your stuff, while the police gently set down whatever donuts they are consuming so they can get to your house and PROTECT YOU AFTER THE BURGLAR IS DONE. Yes, I have been broken into more than once so I am a little one sided in this matter. The last time was probably a teen ager who needed some money for drugs, just took small stuff so that he could keep walking down the street without anyone paying any attention. - The courts will protect the rights of the criminal instead of the rights of the victim. Actual story, a burglar was climbing on a person's roof looking for a way to break in. The burglar fell and broke his leg. After being arrested, he sued the home owner for the injury from falling from the roof AND WON. Sure, he went to jail, but he was trespassing in the first place. Second, you don't have the right to place traps on your property in order to injure or harm anyone who does trespass. A man set up a trap in his house where a burglar would be electrocuted if he stepped on a particular plate. The man was charged with criminal endangerment because he caught a burglar. The courts felt that the burglar's right to an uncontested looting was more important that the right of the man to protect his property. Third, if your dog bites a burglar, you will be held liable. Fourth, even if you make an effort, that is not good enough. If you have a six foot brick wall around your back yard, that does protect you from liability if a child climbs over the wall and drowns in your pool. If you put sharp glass on the top of the wall to keep people out, then you are presenting a hazard to anyone that tries to climb over. If a dog bites someone that climbs over, then you have an uncontrolled beast. And worst yet, if you empty the pool so no one can drown, then the open hole is presenting a potential hazard for anyone that jumps in without looking. The point is that the courts have slowly and with intent, stripped away the primary protection of property rights and replaced them with, well, nothing. Recently, one of the TV stations, on a slow news day, broadcast a story about a group of horse riders that were complaining about a new fence that was installed. It appears that the fence cut off their access to a local dry river bed where they could ride their horses. The news story failed to mention that the fence had been constructed by the owner of the property because he was tired of horse leaving their droppings on his property, he was tired of having people enter and leave his property without permission, and he was tired of paying extra for additional insurance to protect him just in case one of the horse riders fell and got hurt while trespassing. The news story failed to make it a point of saying that the horse riders had been trespassing for years. The news story failed to point out that these horse riders didn't own enough property to properly maintain a horse and were only interested in getting something for free. And lastly, the news story failed to get a response from the owner of the property or even a property rights lawyer to be able to show both sides of the discussion. So where is this entire discussion going? Simply put, society is accepting, and in some cases demanding, that there is no longer any value in property rights. The case in the headlines right now is the issue of trading songs over the Internet. Bear in mind that we are not talking about one or two songs, we are talking about hundreds or even thousands of songs. Generally speaking, each recording of each song is owned by someone, whether it be the record company or the recording artist or a little old lady in Maine. The owner has certain rights in relation to the copies of that recording. If the Internet did not exist, then the only choice you would have to get a copy of the recording would be to buy the album. So in what twisted logic can someone believe that just because the technology exists to transfer the song digitally to another computer that it is all right to do so. Basically, this is a means for someone to get something for free. The song swappers say that it is their right because they can do it and record companies and artists make too much money anyway. Now think about it, how stupid is that. The artists don't record the songs in the first place for the fun of it, they do it to make money. Eliminating the royalties on the songs simply provides an incentive for the artist to stop recording. Is there a solution? Yes, first the courts must place rights in the proper order. Property rights come before the right of choice by the burglar to steal that property. Property rights come before the liability incurred by anyone trespassing on that property without permission. Property rights include the right to protect the property in whatever manner is appropriate. The property owner's life need not be in danger to enforce property rights, those rights exist under all circumstances. |
| This land is my land, this land IS NOT your land... |