“Libertarian centralism” advocates using the federal constitution – specifically, the 14th amendment – to strike down state and local laws deemed contradictory to individual rights. The anti-centralism argument, frequently expressed here by Stephan Kinsella, holds that expanding federal power is not a valid means of protecting individual liberty. Centralism proponents, in turn, respond by accusing anti-centralists of supporting an incorrect reading of the constitution (not to mention a host of historical evils like slavery).
I’ve never been terribly interested in whose interpretation of the constitution is “correct.” It strikes me as a very backwards-looking approach to defending individual rights. Centralist arguments tend to remind me of the old television series “Quantum Leap,” where a time-traveling scientist switched places with people from the past and “corrected” the mistakes they made. If only we could go back and properly interpret the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the centralists argue, we’d have a more libertarian society today. Oh, boy.
The danger of a constitution-based approach to individual rights is that people are constantly referencing the words of the past rather then looking at their actions in the present. Here in Charlottesville, the home of Thomas Jefferson, this problem has come to the forefront in recent weeks thanks to the local “Tea Party” movement and a conservative “civil rights” organization that view property rights as a threat to the sanctity of the First Amendment.In 2008, voters in Virginia’s fifth congressional district ousted longtime Republican Rep. Virgil Goode, replacing him with Democrat Tom Perriello. Perriello’s office in a small, downtown Charlottesville building has become the focal point for anti-Democratic activists such as the Jefferson Area Tea Party. While these protest groups claim to be pro-business, they’ve proven harmful to the businesses that share the building with Perriello’s office. Lisa Provence reported in The Hook:
Victoria Snapp, owner of Three Esthetics, a downtown salon, was growing concerned when some of her regular customers started skipping appointments, and it became apparent politics were causing trouble for her upscale hair coiffery.
“It was turning into a nightmare,” says Snapp. “Last week,” she says in mid-November, “we had three different assemblies, and the smallest was 17 to 20 people.”
It seems that the pro-business protesters who regularly swarm the parking lot to give an earful to Congressman Tom Perriello, Snapp’s neighbor in the Glass Building, were putting the hurt on her business.
“We’re a full service spa,” she explains. “You want to get a massage to step away from the world. The last thing you want to do is go through a screaming crowd while trying to relax.”
It wasn’t just screaming. On November 10, a bus with a public address system was blaring music that could be heard inside Snapp’s treatment room, as health-care reform protesters and counter-protesters tried to outdo each other.
“Here we are trying to peacefully enjoy our business,” says Snapp, “and there’s no consideration.”…
…Snapp tells a reporter that she repeatedly and respectfully asked protesters not to block the parking area, where she pays $100 per space – to no avail.
At one recent protest, the Americans for Prosperity bus snagged eight spaces – without paying a cent for the privilege, Snapp confirms.
The price of parking doesn’t tell the whole story. Landlord Lisa Murphy estimates that when a would-be customer is turned away, that costs a business about $150.
Murphy eventually called the police, and the protesters were told to stay on the sidewalk, about 100 yards from the building. This didn’t sit well with local conservative “civil rights” leader John Whitehead, who naturally viewed the protesters’ First Amendment “rights” as superior to the mere property rights of Murphy and her tenants:
Whitehead calls the location of the Congressman’s office on private property “disingenuous,” and adds, “That’s been used by a lot of people to avoid protesters.”
He mentions abortion providers who locate clinics in private, high-rise buildings. “It’s an old tactic,” says Whitehead.
Citing something called the “heckler’s veto,” he also questions whether Three Esthetics represents the entire building. “Hecklers,” says Whitehead, “cannot veto free speech.”
Whitehead is also interested in the situation of Josh Lambert, who’s with the UVA College Republicans. Lambert was told by police November 17 he could either stand on the sidewalk or inside Perriello’s office.
“It’s got nothing to do with property rights,” says Lambert. “Sure, the landlady owns the building. But who pays for his office? It’s our property. I own a stake in Congressman Perriello’s office.”
Whitehead followed up with a letter to Perriello demanding the congressman “facilitate your constituents in exercising their rights to petition, speak and demonstrate” by relocating his office to “a place where citizens’ rights…may not be squelched by the fiat of an individual or individuals who are attempting to protect their private property interests…”
Now, I’m no civil rights attorney, but I’m having a hard time understanding how the First Amendment – which simply prohibits Congress, as a body, from infringing upon free speech and expression – either requires an individual congressman to locate his office in a particular type of building or permits individuals to trespass on private property merely because a congressman is present. Lambert’s argument that he owns “a stake in Congressman Perriello’s office” is disingenuous. Perriello never restricted access to his own office. Lambert is claiming “a stake” in the entire building, including the parking lot, which belongs to Lisa Murphy.
Whitehead can spin this as a First Amendment issue all he wants; the truth is, he’s merely spreading a false victim mentality among people who seem to have nothing better to do than harass small business owners. There’s no “conflict” here between property rights and free speech. This is obvious to anyone who doesn’t rely on the federal constitution to define his or her sense of right and wrong.
I’m not suggesting that all, or even most, constitutional enthusiasts (or libertarian centralists) support Whitehead’s interpretation of the First Amendment. But here’s the thing: If we look at this situation applying simple libertarian principles, there’s clearly no problem; Once the sacred constitution is introduced as a reference point, however, a completely nonsensical “conflict” sounds plausible to a sizable group of people. This means defenders of individual rights have to fight against not just those who oppose us outright, but also those who claim to support us under a discredited historical document that can support any cockamamie definition of “rights” you choose.
“Libertarian centralism” isn’t bad because it proposes a false reading of the constitution. It’s bad because it teaches us to look to the constitution as a source of rights in the first place. The Perriello office affair is merely a cautionary tale about the dangers of such thinking.
{ 12 comments }
Interesting points. I have never viewed the Constitution as a tool to conflate the issue, but rather something that people mis-interpret. However, if there is room for mis-interpretation, then it must not be a good tool for defining rights. Any other links from the author of the “libertartian principles” that he/she espouses.
One disagreement I have is that there is room for incorrect interpretation in almost anything. People throughout history have “interpreted” the Bible to fit their desires. Does this mean that the Bible is a flawed document? Just some thoughts.
The Constitution was designed to be more or less a legal document. Yet it’s language is contrary to such purpose. It seems more like a piece of propaganda in this respect, filled with vague terms never given full legal definition.
Is it the legal foundation of our federal government, or a warning sign and object of ideological organization for rebels?
In practice, maybe these are not really different.
“in 2008, voters in Virginia’s fifth congressional district ousted longtime Republican Rep. Virgil Goode, replacing him with Democrat Tom Perriello.”
except for the 49.9% of voters who wanted Goode. But they don’t count…
@JJ
In point of fact, after the election, they *don’t* count.
I think it’s telling that the Tea Party guy mentioned abortion clinics. In both cases, the objective of the activists is not “exercising the right of free speech”; it’s disrupting the activities of the office. It’s possible to petition your congressman, or express your disapproval of abortion, without trespassing on or blockading the office. There is no conflict with the First Amendment.
If we follow Whitehead’s assertion to its logical conclusion, one could claim ownership over the property of anyone else, since we all participate in the “democratic process”. Whether we vote or not, we each presumably have a say in public policy, so would we not be justified in subjugating every other person’s private property rights to our right to influence their vote (or voting abstinence)?
I’ve run into this “hierarchy of rights” argument on many occasions, when someone insists that some particular “right” trumps another. This mode of thinking is, of course, fraught with conflict, making it all the easier for those who presume to know our needs better than we to usurp the ability to provide therefor. Alas, private property will ever be demolished in favor of whatever happens to be convenient to the cause du jour.
Re: Sandiwch: Agreed. The first amendment is trotted out when it serves the purpose of the loud aggressor, but any consistent concept of rights is completely lost on him. Were you to suggest such non-intrusive methods to him he would undoubtedly claim that they would be ineffective (which is probably true), and that alone would justify the violation of another person’s “lesser” right to private property.
REGARDING PARKING
It sounds like a case can be legitimately made that Murphey’s or Snapp’s property rights have been violated, assuming one of them legitimately owns the spaces that were usurped by the bus and protestors.
REGARDING SOUND
The same cannot be said of the other argument. Murphy estimates that when a would-be customer is turned away, that costs a business about $150. But this is entirely irrelevant. If I start a public protest on the spa, I may succeed in turning away business, but I have not violated the rights of either Murphy or Snapp.
As for Snapp, it sounds to me like she believes she has positive rights (assuming the protestors were not physically on her property). In reality, positive rights cannot exist in a universe confined by the law of non-contradiction. Ergo, she does not have positive rights.
The idea that one has the right to use force to prevent what some call “noise pollution” or “light pollution” is founded on the notion that the person using force has a positive right to be free from unwanted noise or light, and may invade the property of others so as to enforce this positive “right.”
Since all true rights are negative rights, it instead stands to reason that, if a person wishes to be securely free from noise or light pollution, it is her personal responsibility to, for example, make sure she has acquired (through legitimate means, of course) a large enough plot of land so that her home or business will not be effected by noises or lights that eminate from beyond the property boundary.
If, after this, a person comes onto her property and starts making noise, only then can it be said that her negative rights have been violated, and that she has the legitimate authority to use force against her aggressor.
If she does not go about taking the personal responsibility of acquiring enough land (through legitimate means) so as to avoid dealing with unwanted sounds or sights, or of acquiring walls (through legitimate means) thick enough to keep out unwanted sounds or sights, she has no case in accordance with natural law.
The only exception I think I can detect here is that, if the noise is so loud or the light so strong that it causes actual physical damage to the property, then her negative rights have indeed been infringed upon, and she thus does have a case in accordance with natural law.
(In any event, if the protestors were physically on Murphy’s or Snapp’s property, then my above analysis is mostly irrelevant, since the matter then is not about noise pollution but instead about trespassing.)
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Alex Peak,
Re: Regarding Sound
If you start a public protest against the spa and turn away its business, you have not violated the spa’s rights. But that’s not what happened. If you trespass on the spa’s property (with or without a protest, whether or not of the spa) you have violated the spa’s rights. If the only damage is simply your unwanted presence, ejectment will suffice as a remedy. But if the spa can prove that your trespass proximately caused other damages, such as lost business (hey, I said “if”), then remuneration for those damages, along with ejectment, is a proper remedy.
Dear Robby,
I do not disagree. My intention here is not to defend tresspass, but rather to defend noise pollution.
Regarding your reply, the question here is: did the protestors trespass upon the property of either Murphy or Snapp? The articles quoted do not give enough detail to determine whether they did. It fails to specify who owns the parking lot, but whomever does own the parking lot has every right to expell any unwanted guests regardless of said guests’ intention to communicate.
Actually, in re-reading the above articles, it appears that Snapp rents spaces from whomever owns the parking lot, and on this ground, I think it appropriate to say that tresspass indeed did happen. That is, unless the renter has a contract with the owner saying that the authority to expell persons from the property belongs to the owner solely and not also the renter; I doubt this would be the case, however.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
I think the problem here is that the leader of the Tea Party in Roanoke has fallen for the fallacy that a lot of people fall into with regard to the 1st amendment. The first amendment guarantees your right to say what you want to say. It does not guarantee your right to be heard.
Also the purpose of this right is to defend the following base rights that you have just being alive from the government, the right to that life, the right to liberty while you live,the right to the property you earn or produce with that life, and the right to pursue happiness in that life.
I think it was from Rothbard that I learned an important simplification:
all human rights are property rights
It’s so easy to determine aggression when you simply establish whose legitimate property rights are in play.
“right to free speech” is meaningless. Property rights are king.
Comments on this entry are closed.