- December 4, 2025
Dear Editor,
A contributor has recently suggested that the freedom to choose whatever one does with one's own property is a "balance," where freedom is curtailed when the outcome "affects the well being" of others — an effect which could mean anything from simply offending one's eyes by my property's appearance to some possible, but speculative and incalculable, effect on property values.
That "balance" seems to amount to, you tell me what you prefer I do with my property, and I simply obey your preference. "Balance" or forced conformity to self-appointed social arbiters? True balance is this: I refrain from telling you what to do with your property (paint it purple, burn it, whatever you wish) and you afford me the same simple courtesy (fear not, I won't burn mine).
Of course, we do need laws to protect people from criminal behavior (robbery, assault, etc.) and from actions flouting public safety (drunk driving, etc.). What justifies such restrictions is that such acts threaten the human rights of others. There is no right to do that; you are not free to threaten my freedom.
Mere annoyances and social disagreements do not demand address by statutes, ordinances or any restriction enforced by the state. They do not threaten anarchy in the streets or the decline of Western civilization. They should not be imposed by force (as government laws are) but would be better addressed on some more informal or neighborly basis (perhaps some form of negotiation or arbitration). Imposition of such by law is excessive.
If a zoning ordinance restricts private property, consider what process ensues. First, a daily fine is typically imposed. That fine accumulates, and if the homeowner refuses to pay because he is convinced the complaint is unjust, eventually a lien may be placed against his property. If the lien itself is not paid off, ultimately his property can be seized to effect payment, and the homeowner evicted by officers (by force if he resists).
And all for what? Because the guy down the block did not like his paint job on his house? Is such a result reasonable, sensible, or even sane? Now, those who propose a "balance" of freedom would probably say that this stubborn homeowner deserved his fate. He should have simply obeyed because, after all, "It's the law."
But laws are sometimes unjust and should be changed. Our homeowner may have been the party in the right here, not the government. We should not insist simply on more laws, but on better laws.
Anthony Teague
Palm Coast
