Let me start by saying my personal value is that I cherish private property rights.  For those in Rio Linda, private property rights refer to an owner’s right to acquire, keep, use and dispose of property in ways that do not violate property rights of others.  If that is a shared value, which it is obviously not, there would be little debate on an entire body of public policy issues.  Shall we look into this further?  Ok, let’s. 

I am the property of myself.  This means I am the property of TheJOTUS.  Among a host of other kick ass things, this means I have the right to take chances with my own life but not that of others.  Making me wear a seat belt violates my rights; however for example, drunk driving laws do not.  Choosing not to wear my seat belt may raise my risk of death, but this is my right as an individual.  Whereas, drunk driving can raise the risk of injuring others, which is clearly not my right.   

I have several friends who say “If you don’t wear a seat belt, get in an accident and wind up a vegetable, then you become a burden to me.”  They are implying that they will have to take care of me via the taxes they pay.  This is not a problem of private property rights; it is a problem of socialism (weakened private property rights).  People’s money belongs to them.  They should not be forced to take care of me. 

I remember back in the 1990’s when Dr. Kevorkian brought his “right to die” case all the way to the Supreme Court.  I bring this up because I believe this is the perfect stage where private property rights can really shine.  Let us imagine for a moment it is the United States vs. TheJOTUS.  First, the Court would have to determine just who owns TheJOTUS.  I think we can safely say once he turned eighteen, at that point he owned himself.   

With this finding of self-ownership, this would make the high court’s finding easy.  Their 9-0 decision would read something like this (keep in mind my lack of legal writing experience):  Though the thought of TheJOTUS ending his precious life is distasteful and while the loss of his creative and witty blogs will be a huge loss to the world, never the less, we find he owns himself and has the right to dispose of his life in any manner consistent with the safety of others. 

This would be entirely different if I didn’t own myself.  For the sake of argument, let’s say the government owns him.  With that, I wouldn’t have the right to take chances with my life.  The government would have every right to make me wear a seat belt.  Even more, they would have the right to force me to exercise, restrict my diet and monitor my alcohol intake.  In the United States vs. TheJOTUS, the court would justly rule I had no right to dispose of TheJOTUS.  I mean, that would be destroying government property, right?  

I disagree with how some people unwisely use their property.  Engine parts in the yard, ugly tattoos, bad wardrobe—basically, think Wal-Mart clientele.  But the true test of one’s commitment to liberty and private property rights doesn’t come when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we agree.  The true test comes when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we disagree.