It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong - Andrew P. Napolitano [103]
Fortunately for the state, the world is rampant with brutal regimes and dictators. While the United States cannot be expected to extinguish them all, the government will surely seek to capitalize on trying. Unfortunately for individuals, spreading the gospel of democracy is anything but in the interest of liberty. If the government cannot deliver the mail, how can it be expected to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?32 Professor Robert Higgs recommends that we “decline the fool’s errand of perpetually enforcing our political standards on the entire world.”33 When will the government listen?
The war in Iraq has demonstrated the intense tragedy of war. Through every graphic photograph and newspaper caption, the public has been exposed to its horror and heartbreak. President George W. Bush, nonetheless, told a Time magazine reporter that the war in Iraq was a “catastrophic success.”34 That it was a catastrophic success cannot be doubted, nor can for whom it was a catastrophic success be doubted: The federal government.
177
Chapter 11
When the Devil Turns Round on You:
The Right to Fairness from the Government
Consider the following hypothetical, taking place in Danistan, a country with no courts to hear disputes. Recently elected Governor N’ameyore Price decides that there is a pressing public need to convert your land into a reserve for the rare Saharan penguin. After doing some research, you discover that your state constitution grants each individual a right to be secure in his property, which can only be abridged if there is (1) an exceptional public necessity, and (2) the government provides fair and just compensation. Despite your pleadings that the high school nearby would make this an unsuitable location (Saharan penguins are terrified of Danistanian teenagers, and refuse to eat or reproduce on the same continent as them), Governor Price decides to go ahead with his plan. To make matters worse, the governor refuses to pay anything more than the market value of the property as of 1908, insisting, “If I have to suffer as a Cubs fan, then it is only fair and just that we all do.” Two days after taking the property, Governor Price announces that, on second thought, the land would better serve the public interest if it was auctioned off to the pharmaceutical industry (not surprisingly, a key contributor to his political campaign).
Outraged, you do some more research and discover that your state constitution also grants a right to free speech, “except for speech tending to promote hatred against an identifiable group.” Consequently, you try to oust Price from political office by holding up signs outside voting booths which say “no land for penguins.” Governor Price orders you off the premises, insisting that your protest is not protected since it constitutes hate speech, as it incites public resentment toward “a discrete and insular minority of Saharan penguins, seriously curtailing the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities.” (The governor is a disbarred lawyer.)
178
Think for a moment: What exactly is legally wrong in the hypothetical above? In other words, if you were a legislator, what laws would you want to pass to prevent such future transgressions of natural rights? Although it is undeniable that you have robust rights to property and speech, the law extends only as far as the government desires if the government does not need to follow certain procedures in applying those laws to you. In short, substantive rights become no more than an instrument of propaganda intended to convince the public that we live in a free society.
This chapter discusses