Wesley Chapel, an aspiring collectivist suburb, is apparently trying to highlight its potential to big brother Charlotte, NC.

Its latest endeavor of political charades is to trample the property rights of Michael Land by criminalizing the use of firearms within “Village” (how cute) limits. Dr. Land is a fellow firearm enthusiast and has been enjoying his six acres of freedom since 1991, when the area was little more than farmland. For some odd reason, individuals who’ve moved into a subdivision adjacent to Land’s property feel comfortable using government force to compensate for their lack of thorough research when deciding to move into the area. Many of the interviewed shared hollow, emotional sentiments such as:

“If we’re sitting on our back deck and he’s firing a high-caliber machine gun, we can’t carry on our conversation,” said Mike Failor, who has lived in a Stonegate house behind Land’s property since 2001.”

Hmmm… even sweeping aside concept of property rights, which should end this debate, doesn’t the 10 years of precedent mean anything with regards to who should have to change their lifestyle?

On the other hand, there are some who are a little more explicit with their wishes:

“For now, Dr. Land lies perfectly within his rights as prescribed by current law, but what about my rights to enjoy my property? He should consider those who live around his firing range & remove the range as a sign of goodwill and buy property further out. The time has past when this was a rural area as there are many more taxpaying residents that he should take into consideration.” [bold added]

In other words, my wishes trump his right to property even though he isn’t breaking any laws. He should forfeit that right and go elsewhere as a symbol of his devotion to ‘public interest’. My gang of taxpayers is bigger than yours.

Once again we see the ominous perils of subjective law. Invoking force against an individual is only proper as a response, or as an extremely rare preclusion, to that individual’s violation of another’s right to life, liberty or property. Law based on any other basis is nothing more than mob rule, where legal objectivity is mere inconvenience.

Dr. Land has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an effort to make his personal range exceptionally safe. Although I’m not sure on what legal grounds, his property has also been “inspected” by the local sheriff and earned his approval of safety. Dr. Land has violated the rights of no one. In fact, his are the only rights that are being encroached upon.

Yes, I know according to our pathetically over-reaching, unprincipled legal system, he very well could be considered a criminal.

My point is that he shouldn’t be.

Unfortunately, one of many inescapable realities of freedom is that it inherently entitles individuals to do or say things that we disagree with, and in some cases things that repulse us. Cruelty to animals repulses me. If indeed Vick tortured and beat dogs to death - I’d love to see him accidentally fall into a cage of lions for some real one-on-one intimacy with aggressive animals.

However, as much as the thought of torturing or killing animals disgusts me, it should not be a legal issue (except for the extent that I mention below). Laws based on subjective whims are a tyrannical wildcard that must never be dealt in a free society.

Animals have no legal rights. A right is an ethical principle sanctioning an individuals action, and is only applied to rational, moral beings. Animals are neither.

I love most animals in general and dogs in particular. The thought of my sweet natured Chocolate Labrador being confiscated and used as psycho-bait for other more aggressive dogs is nauseating. If that horrible thought became a reality I do support very extreme legal penalties for such theft. Dogs & other animals that have owners are property of those owners - very special property, property that cannot be replaced.

Penalties for stealing another individuals pet should be harsh enough to effectively deter the practice. However, if the cruelty to animals doesn’t encroach on the rights of others (excruciating as it may be) a free country must allow it.

The self-induced damage to Vick’s marketability will probably render the end of his NFL career. It should not however, land him in the courtroom.

I have a new appreciation for something that I used to despise. I hated the smoky haze of restaurants and bars. I’d always dreaded the lingering artifacts of the dining experience on my clothes. “I wish they wouldn’t smoke in here”, I’d mutter, every time I walked near the smoking section. I’d think how great it would be for the owners of the restaurant to not allow smoking.

If the owner of an establishment decided that rule, it’d be perfectly fine. That’s the way it should work in a supposedly “free” market of a supposedly “free” country. Right?

Apparently not. Charlotte, NC is trying to follow the hideous trend of “banning” smoking in bars and restaurants.
Their justification for this sickening encroachment on property rights is that second-hand smoke (”SHS”) is detrimental to the health of non-smokers.

Hey GovCo… IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

While the degree of detriment is debatable, the voluntary participation of the customer in this barter trumps any SHS infliction. To avoid any risks, don’t go in the building. Seems pretty simple to me.

This issue, like just about all “problems” that our Imperial Federal Government thinks it needs to “fix” is best left up to the market for a resolution.

From the patron’s perspective, every time a person walks into a restaurant, they make a decision to either subject themselves to any second-hand smoke in environment or leave. When or if enough people make the decision to leave, and the demand for a smoke-free dining experience is apparent, the market will respond.

From the business owners perspective, If an individual works their way into an ownership position of an establishment, they set the rules. It’s their work that earned them the position. Their investment of time, energy and money was on the line. It’s their family that suffers if business is bad. It’s them who instead of being able to focus on growing their business, is forced to withstand our insidious tax code; dedicating precious scarce resources to the cause of feeding a wasteful government its “fair share” every three months. You’d think as long as one feeds the beast appropriately, they’d at least earn the right to run a business as they see fit. It’s their business to run.

I now embrace the smell of cigarette smoke in restaurants. It represents a time when our country was one step closer in resemblance to what the founders intended. Once again, I’m drawn back to my favorite quote: “I’d rather perish in justice than prosper under imperialism”. Indeed, I’d rather die of lung cancer due to SHS in a truly free, capitalistic nation than be healthy in a socialistic one.

The American government has dropped its loyalty and adherence to the Enlightenment’s unyielding principles (reason, rule of law, inalienable individual rights, freedom, capitalism). This country is dominated by a cancer of politicians who are morally and philosophically bankrupt. Hang on, it’s going to be a rough ride.

There are others who feel the same way.