Would Rand Paul help save "our" coast?By Contributing Op-Ed columnist
June 02, 2010, 5:43PM
<snip>
As oil from the Deepwater Horizon blowout washes up into wetlands, one of the most striking things about the public reaction is silence on the subject of property rights -- even though much of the marsh being destroyed is privately owned.
Ordinarily, politicians love to talk about the supremacy of private property rights. But the most common refrain among politicians, journalists and local citizenry affected by the spill is that the oil and dispersants are destroying "our wetlands," or as Congressman Charlie Melancon sobbed before Congress last week, "America's wetlands."
Under well-established Louisiana property law, coastal wetlands (other than the narrow line consisting of the seashore) don't belong to "everyone" or even to America. Instead, Louisiana courts have long held that they are "susceptible of private ownership."
Of course, some of these wetlands may belong to the state of Louisiana or to the federal government as nature preserves, but many thousands of acres belong to private individuals, family trusts and corporations. Yet right now, the technical question of which person or what entity has title to these wetlands is almost entirely beside the point.
Why? Because the wetlands provide immense economic and social benefits to countless individuals and communities who have no legal claim to ownership of them and who legally have no right to use or possess them.
Convenience stores, mechanics and motels service fishermen on their way to the water. The seafood industry harvests shrimp and fish born deep in the estuaries. Factories process the seafood; restaurants serve it up. Inland communities rely on the wetlands to buffer them from hurricanes. All of these people and businesses depend on "our wetlands," even if they can't claim a property interest in them.
In short, what the Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us is that private ownership may be an important issue in the law, but in times like these it may be the least important thing of all.
If BP and Transocean make a calamitous decision on an oil and gas drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, their misuse of their property can destroy the marsh grass on private property 100 miles away. Their mistake can also damage the entire economy of a community that depends on the ecological health of those privately owned wetlands. People here understand that.
Other perspectives on property rights are, unfortunately, less evolved. Rand Paul, the recently anointed Republican Senate candidate from Kentucky, remarked in May that private property owners, particularly those who own private businesses, should be able to do almost anything they choose with their property, even discriminate against customers of a particular race or religion.
He apparently fails to appreciate that if the law were to allow a private business owner to discriminate in this manner it would deprive whole portions of our citizenry of the right to obtain basic goods and services essential to modern life. In other words, were the law to protect every person's right to exclude others from his private property absolutely, it would impose huge and intolerable costs on the persons excluded and on society as a whole.
One of the few silver linings of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is that it demonstrates that views like those of Rand Paul are basically immature, adolescent views of property. They remind me of teenagers who like to put up signs on their bedroom doors warning their siblings and parents not to enter at any cost.Of course property rights serve many important values. They promote investment in resources and encourage industry. They protect privacy and individual autonomy. But there are many situations where property rights matter very little.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us of this fact every single day. No private wetland owner is asserting the right to exclude workers or volunteers from laying down boom or cleaning up the goop fouling the plants and animals that live on their wetlands.
Altruistic values, such as our willingness to reach across private boundaries and help a neighbor, come into play when the stakes are highest. Private ownership is not where the action is when it comes to responding to a crisis like the one we are living through now.
Instead, everyone, from the floor of Congress to the deck of a shrimp boat, understands that our wetlands are essential to entire communities, towns and industries, and so must be cared for by us all.
Let's hope Rand Paul is paying attention.
<snip>
Link:
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/would_rand_paul_help_save_our.html:kick:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
