Gun rights vs. property rights, a conundrum for "conservatives"

'Tis hunting season in Minnesota.  Right now it is deer season and we can hear gunshots now and then.  I hope they were all on federal land to the south of us.

Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep).  Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.

Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing.  In some other counties one can buy land maps.  Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.

Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?

Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway.  Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?

This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.

I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.

Hunters should oppose "Stand Your Ground" laws

Once again it is that tiresome time of year in the Northland.  Off in the distance, bang!  Too close for comfort, bang!  Bird season has started and then next month is deer season with a few other hunting seasons thrown in.

Last time I checked, landowners in Minnesota are supposed to post their property with "No Trespassing" signs every 300-500 feet.  In other words, hunters were free to trespass on private land that was not posted.

Even if posted, some hunters ignore the signs or even evidence that they were shooting into private property.  One fall a bird hunter shot down our driveway with our red pickup plainly visible.  My wife happened to be nearby and yelled at him.  He grabbed his bird, ran to his truck, and drove off as quickly as he could.

What if my wife had a gun in her hand?  If Minnesota had a "Stand Your Ground" law, would she be in the right to shoot the trespassing hunter?

Last season some bird hunters shot into our land where there was no brush under the power line.  There were "No Trespassing" signs within 300 feet of where they shot.  What if I had been walking on a trail that paralleled the road and had a gun with me.  Would I have been "standing my ground" to shoot back?  They were also shooting within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling on the other side of the road.

Given that a GPS unit costs less than most rifles and that St. Louis County, Minnesota, publishes plat maps, available free online, listing all the properties and owners, should landowners even be required to post their property?

Responsible hunters know where they hunt and respect property rights.  They would be safe.  But the few irresponsible hunters give the impression that all hunters do not respect property rights.  These irresponsible hunters should be very glad that Minnesota doesn't have a "Stand Your Ground" law.

Wisconsin's Selective Free Markets

Many in the Wisconsin Senate want to relax the "restrictive regulations" on permits for iron mining.  Others claim that those restrictions will ensure protection for the water and land near the proposed mine. "Updated:(Gogebic Abandons Mine Plans!) Wisconsin Mining Bill Sent Back To Committee", Eric Bau, Daily Kos.

A few years ago there was a big hullabaloo about a high-voltage line in Wisconsin.  Many who lived in the area of the right-of-way were opposed.  I don't remember what setback was required for the line, but many residents felt that it was too little.  There were also strong complaints about property rights.  The project went through and the line was built.

Now a company is trying to put wind turbines in several areas of Wisconsin.  Some landowners object to the size of the setbacks and the amount of access to be granted the wind companies.  Suddenly, the Wisconsin legislature is falling all over itself to increase the setbacks and other regulations on the wind companies.

What is so different about the third case that doesn't apply in the first two cases?  That is, why do large companies' interests trump the rights of individual property owners in the first two cases, but the rights of individual property owners should be paramount in the third case.

I have my suspicions, but I would need a lot more documentation than I care to look for now.

Externalities and property rights

Although I have three blog ideas the muse seems to have left me. To keep my six loyal fans coming back, here is a letter to the editor of Barron's that I came across when deleting some old emails. I emailed it on January 11, 2000. At that time, I kept paper copies of any my letters that were published. Since I couldn't find a copy of this one, I presume I won't have the Wall Street Journal lawyers knocking on my door.

Thomas Donlan has it backwards when he states that "Externalities exist where there are no property rights." Externalities exist because ofproperty rights. Further, he limits the definition of an externality when he states it is a "displacement of a privately caused cost into a public expense." An externality is a cost imposed on or a benefit given to parties outside of a voluntary transaction.

The standard example he cites of a polluter dumping waste into a lake has two aspects. There is the public aspect of contaminating the fishing and drinking water of many people. There is also the private aspect of decreasing the value of lakefront property. Donlan states that "the power of property rights" gives the owners claims against the polluter. But how will these claims be settled?

Will the polluter be forced to cease operation? That takes away the "property rights" of the polluter. Will the polluter be forced to pay damages to the lakefront property owners? But that goes against one of the tenets of the "private markets" that Donlan extols so often, namely that all transactions are voluntary. If the lakefront property owners were not in the market to sell their property, why should they be forced to enter into transactions to "sell part of their property"?

Oh, if only people would live by the ideal models of Thomas Donlan on the one hand or of Karl Mark on the other, life would be so much simpler!