A few weeks ago, I attended a townhall meeting with
State Senator Sam Aanestad. In his briefing, he referred to the following quote from the
famous 1957 book Atlas Shrugged by author Ayn Rand:
"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when
there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a
crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation
of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create
a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt... " (Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand, 1957.)
This year, it seems like we
have seen an unprecedented increase in regulatory control over lives in District 5. There
is the impending State coho listing and the Clean Water Act’s limits for “Total Maximum Daily Loads”
(TMDLs) rolling rapidly down the pike; the pressure by federal agencies to regulate use of
private groundwater and instream flows for fish; increased federal and State controls over
timber harvesting on private land; increased regulations on our volunteer firefighters;
burn barrel prohibitions; and ever increasing regulatory requirements for small
businesses.
Locally, I have calls from
constituents demanding new local viewshed, noise abatement, vacation rental, parking, fuel
reduction, address signage, animal leashing and other ordinances to control their neighbor’s
behavior. In addition, the federal and State government through the “Five Counties
Plan” is pushing for road grading and buffer ordinances, as well as other mitigations
for fisheries to be added into local Planning requirements for land use.
As a proponent of limited
government and local control, I am alarmed. Regulation is the use of institutional force
(government) to change individual behavior. I have always understood that the appropriate
use of “institutional force” or the “police powers” is to protect the
public from individual behaviors that would cause substantial injury to general public
health and safety. Few of these new regulations have any such purpose. I have always
understood that when the majority wants to use the institutions of government to change
individual behavior not posing such a threat, it may do so through market or other
positive incentive, not regulation. The use of regulation to advance the collective or
state benefit is inappropriate.
The basic standard or “maxim”
for individual behavior has traditionally been that “each one must so use his own
property so as not to substantially injure his neighbor.” That injury may be “private,” (interference
with the use and enjoyment of another's real property,) or “public” –
substantially injuring the entire community and not just one person. Regulation should not
be applied to protect a single interest or a single group’s interest from injury, but
the legitimate interests of the general public health and safety.
On the
anniversary of our nation’s birth, I recall a very early Supreme Court case that
defined the concept of “liberty”:
”By 'liberty,' as thus used, is meant something more than
freedom from physical restraint or imprisonment. It means freedom, not merely to go
wherever one may choose, but to do such acts as
he may judge best for his interest not inconsistent with the equal rights of others;
that is, to follow such pursuits as may be best adapted to his faculties, and which will
give to him the highest enjoyment...." [Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S.
366.]
In the United States and the State of California,
the delegation of authority by the People to
government institutions, (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches,) is done through a
constitution. Each constitution took care to ensure liberty – to protect the retained rights of the individual from
government (institutional force.)
The 4th of July
celebrates the signing of the Declaration of our Independence as a nation and the declaration that liberty is an
inalienable right of all men. Are we, (as Rand wrote,) declaring “so
many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”
? Are we serving liberty by passing “the
kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted”? |
