Clovis’ recent anti-property rights ordinance — disguised as a pest-control measure — should hammer the point home that there is no such thing as “conservative” or “liberal.”
Many of those advocating for this ordinance call themselves conservatives.
But there are only those who hunger to control others and take their property, and those who have no such compulsion.
You might be shocked to learn I would oppose any “law” that forbade property owners from eliminating prairie dogs on their own land just as passionately as I oppose this ordinance, which criminalizes prairie dogs on private property.
Private property? I suppose we can dispense with that illusion now.
Either “law” is wrong in the same way. Either you are forced to allow animals on your property or forced to kill them if they set foot on it. By advocating one position, you automatically legitimize the other side’s position. You can’t have it both ways, and trying to do so just furthers the growth of socialism.
It also brings to attention another inconvenient fact: You can’t legitimately criminalize indigenous nature — although it has been attempted since the first control freak gained the power to enforce his whims on others, especially in the past century under the guise of “fighting drug abuse.”
Wild animals are wild. They are not under the control of property owners. No one can tell them to not trespass, and since trespass is a human concept. It would be ridiculous to try.
Leave it to government to impose ridiculousness by edict.
Since private property owners are being burdened with the responsibility for the wildlife on their property, let’s take a look at poaching laws.
If you are responsible for the wildlife on your land, then that wildlife is yours to do with as you see fit. No need to ask permission from anyone, or to get any sort of “license” or permit.
Once again, you can’t have it both ways.
Recently, in Colorado, some petty tyrants were thrown out of office for just this kind of legislative abuse.
Will you continue to throw your support behind those who would violate your rights, or will you hold them accountable?
In my fondest dreams I imagine that silly overreach of this sort will be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back” and get people to see the game for what it is. In reality, I know most people who oppose this violation of property rights will continue to justify the exact same type of acts against other people’s property, as long as the stated goal is one with which they agree.
Where will you stand?
Farwell’s Kent McManigal champions liberty. Contact him at: