Republic or Dictatorship? The basic distinction between a Republic and a Dictatorship is the existence of private property. Private property exists in a Republic and it does not exist in a Dictatorship. Dictatorship covers the spectrum of oppressors from the Mugabe Dictatorship in Zimbabwe and the "limited" ("limited" meaning the government can rescind it in a heartbeat at their pleasure) communist governments in China and Vietnam to the "on-again, off-again" Russian "democracy" and the socialist rulers in places like Venezuela and Bolivia. Dictatorships "nationalize" property, dictate the use of any property, and take property from those they wish to punish and give it to those they wish to reward. In Dictatorships government "owns" everything: in a Republic the citizens "own" everything while giving limited control of certain property to government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" per the opening words of the Constitution of the United States. Property is mentioned prominently on two occasions in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, smack dab in the middle of the first ten Amendments often referred to as The Bill of Rights. To wit, "nor shall any person". "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Domestic animals have always been considered as and treated as Property. Wild plants and animals were historically considered as the Property of the State. This meant that Kings and Emperors and Nobility and Commissars and Power Cronies and the rich owned the wild plants and animals that occurred anywhere within their authority or control. One of the spectacular products of the Founding of the USA was the concept that wild plants and animals no longer belonged exclusively to property owners but to all the people and that government held them in trust for and by authority of "We the People" that formed and authorized the government. Given this background, it is with growing alarm that the ownership and use of horses in this Republic should be of concern to all Americans. In 1976, the Congress passed The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. This was right in the midst of the Federal legislative tsunami of passage of The Endangered Species Act (1976), The Marine Mammal Protection Act (1976), The Animal Welfare Act (1976), the Airborne Hunting Act (1976), Coastal Zone Management Act (1976), Estuarine Areas Act (1976), Bald Eagle Protection Act (1976), Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities (1976), and at least a half dozen other such "Federal protection of (fill-in-the-blank) Acts of 1976". This was also the first year of the Carter Presidency and two years after the resignation of President Nixon. It was two and a half years after our withdrawal from Vietnam and one year after the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese troops, but who noticed? We were all happy as we "saved" things, thanks to a newly powerful and benevolent Federal government. If there were any alarm bells or objections, there is no record and I for one was unaware of them as I began working in Washington, DC. In one "swell foop" the Federal government of our Fathers used radical environmental and animal rights agenda items to begin a march from Republican government to Dictatorship. How so? By simply declaring jurisdiction over a wild animal that was nothing more than a Domestic Animal (and a "Non-Native" species that "destroys "native plants" or as the jargon of today has it, an "Invasive Species") let loose, the Federal government (President, Congress and Bureaucracy) furthered the Endangered Species/Marine Mammal/Animal Welfare et al model of treating property as Dictatorships do. Private ownership, state authority to regulate numbers and distribution for the good of local communities and economies, and the right of grazers and hunters and others to minimize the many harms (vegetation destruction, winter range competition, disease, etc.) of excessive horse depredations were eliminated with a "stroke of the pen" as they say. Uses of these "wild" horses were severely restricted as to round-up, ownership (by government grant only with "strings"), disposition for meat or hides or other products was forbidden; in short wild horses became "special" in the eyes of the law. Why, one might ask? Simply because some people "like" horses and believe they are "special". Forget for a minute all the ways the politicians and bureaucrats and "horsey organizations" manipulated things: it was the segment of society that is always ready at the drop of a hat to make others live as they want them to live regardless of property rights or societal implications (i.e. "food police", anti-2nd Amendment groups, anti gamefowl groups, anti-trappers, anti-hunters, anti-rodeo, etc., you know all those that are unaffected by what they impose on others). Like those "cute" baby seals and those "smart" whales" and those "necessary" wolves and grizzlies and "poor" laboratory animals et al being brought under Federal perpetual "protection": the "wild horse", even though it is domestic and destructive and (Gasp!) Invasive, was given the quasi-human status of having "rights" under jury-rigged Federal statute. If anyone objected on the grounds of "the domino theory" or "incrementalism" or "slippery slope" they would have been laughed at but they would have been right. As Endangered Species/Marine Mammal/Animal Welfare et al spread their growing Federal tentacles, the Federal horse budget went to millions annually and domestic horse owners began looking at each other and noticing how others did not care for their horses "as they should". Draconian animal enforcement and regulation-proliferation for dogs and cats encouraged thoughts of "forcing" other horse owners to meet "my" standards. Federal legislation to destroy gamefowl breeding and use likewise encouraged hose owners to seek a "special" Federal legal status for their "magnificent", "special", and "loved" horses that a few others (unenlightened bumpkins to be sure) were calling "property". So the Congress just passed and the President signed a law forbidding hose owners to slaughter their horses or to sell them for slaughter or for any slaughter house to buy horses to resell as meat for pets or people or to sell the hides or even the gelatin for Italian gelato. This was supported by the rich Kentucky Derby horse owners, rich suburban guys who have wives and daughters that love their horses, and even the modestly famous guys like John Gibson on Fox News who showed his horses pictures and asked for support for the bill. The poor rancher or farmer or other horse owner had his property right to sell his property when necessary or desirable eliminated instantly. He must now maintain a horse until "hell freezes over" or the horse keels over. There was no "due process" or "just compensation" or "public use" involved, only raw dictatorial power. Now for the good part. The next time someone accuses you (hunter, trapper, gun owner, fisherman, rancher, logger, dog owner, cat owner, logger, rodeo rider, laboratory animal ["partner?", "custodian?", "guardian?", oh heck-] owner, gamefowl breeder, falconer, etc., etc.) of being "paranoid" just because "we want to establish standards" or simply "control" things: think horses. It seems that since passage of this "Brave New World" bit of Federal horse protection from slaughter, about 28,000 horses have been exported to Mexico and an untold number to Canada. The horse "lovers" are "sure" the Mexicans are using them in "charriadas" (rodeo-like competitions [gasp]) and then slaughtering them. It seems you cannot export horses for slaughter so the Federal government is being urged to (extend their Federal animal property controls into Canada and Mexico?, close the borders to all horse movement?, arrest, imprison fine and conscript the oldest male child of violators?, or whatever) stop this "carnage". Folks I couldn't make this stuff up if I watched Marx Brothers movies for a solid week. Do all of you domestic animal owners understand your stake in this? How about all you domestic animal users, breeders, consumers, etc.? Do you wild animal users not see how this is heading straight for you and your traditions and pastimes? Why aren't the courts throwing this stuff out? Why are so many of us silent? Do we really think they will stop with horses? What must be done to make you understand that protecting private property rights is so necessary if we are to save our way of life? If you just think of property rights as something only the rich have you are SO-O-O wrong. Property rights protection is neither right or left, conservative or liberal: property rights protection is the basis and cornerstone of freedom and freedom is absolutely necessary to preserving our Republic and fending off Dictatorship. Wild horses are pests in the true sense of the word. Their regulation and control and even eradication should remain State matters managed in the interests of State residents. The Federal government should no more be able to claim authority over these animals than should any other landowner on property that the Federal government controls with other than Exclusive Jurisdiction. Courts and politicians should be encouraged to restore this aspect of Republican government. If "wild" horses and whales and seals are "special" and can be made "untouchable" like cows in Hindu India, the use and management of all wild animals from deer and turkeys to ducks and trout is in jeopardy and it is only a matter of time until they are all likewise "protected". The use of both "wild" and domestic horses for meat and hides and other products IS NO DIFFERENT from using cattle or sheep or turkeys or deer or rabbits. If you acquiesce in this "special" business for horses; you have no hope when they eventually come for "your critter" or "your critter use". Domestic horses (like gamefowl and cats and dogs and cattle and sheep and poultry and hogs and parakeets et al) are PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Federal government has NO JURISDICTION over them or their disposition by legal owners except insofar as they may affect Interstate Commerce or National Defense, period. The Federal government has no authority, save the indifference of a court system favorably disposed to Federal authority growth and "do-goodism" involving significant portions of the electorate. No matter how many people want to "protect" the property of another, the Federal government has no authority to do such things. Because they do them in spite of this and get away with it, the precedents spread like wildfire and soon enough THE GOVERNMENT "CONTROLS" (i.e. "OWNS") ALL PROPERTY. NO private property is safe as long as we tolerate this usurpation of our rights. If we allow this to stand we are acquiescing in the shift of this society from a Republic to Dictatorship. We must oppose this Federal proliferation by defeating State and Federal politicians that enable it and electing politicians that will rectify it. State bureaucracies, like Federal bureaucracies, are a big part of the problem and must be brought under control and reformed. If you think it is impossible to thwart the will of so many animal protectionists and environmental zealots manipulating bureaucrats and politicians I would suggest you consider a passage from the Book of Exodus written thousands of years ago. "Neither shall you allege the example of the many as an excuse for doing wrong, nor shall you, when testifying in a lawsuit side with the many in perverting justice." That was a sound admonition then and wise advice today. Jim Beers 4 Sep. 2007 |