The past eight years have witnessed an “avalanche” of government encroachment on the personal property rights of Americans and a Hillary Clinton presidency would be even worse, according to financial expert and radio host Gary Rathbun.
He says the first thing voters need to understand is how property rights pertain to a lot more than just our physical property.
“Personal property rights are somewhat misunderstood because we naturally think of real property like real estate and land and your home, but private property rights encompass everything about you; your right to work, your thoughts, your right to speech, everything you own, everything you can produce,” said Rathbun, an Ohio-based personal wealth adviser and host of “An Economy of One” on the Radio America network.
Rathbun says the term “personal property rights” is not often addressed in political campaigns but many of the underlying issues are.
“It’s easier talking about the peripheral aspects: the right to bear arms, wetlands, zoning, eminent domain, minimum wage, free speech. All of those funnel right down to private property rights,” said Rathbun.
He says two significant new items call under that umbrella, including the concerns over health care access and costs.
“In the last years, look at what’s happened with government intruding into our lives. They’ve taken over one of our most personal property rights and that’s our right to health, to choose our health care and choose our doctor,” said Rathbun, noting the government encroachment through environmental regulations is also maddening to him.
“Our real property rights have been highly eroded with the EPA and restrictions on zoning and land use and wetlands. Every day our liberty is thinned down a little bit due to government regulations and what’s been coming out of Washington,” said Rathbun.
Rathbun says the past eight years have inflicted a heavy toll on personal property rights.
“Absolutely an avalanche of encroachment. Look at the EPA. That’s one of the of the easy ones. With an executive order, President Obama changed the language of wetland on your property from navigable to any water on your property. He took out the word ‘navigable’ with just the stroke of a pen. That means the EPA can come on your property and prohibit you from doing just about anything,” said Rathbun.
Other critical personal property rights issues getting a lot of attention are the debates over minimum wage and guns. Rathbun says both Clinton and Donald Trump have it wrong on the minimum wage.
“Hillary Clinton wants a higher minimum wage. By the way, so does Donald Trump. That infringes on your private property rights. You can’t negotiate unless it’s over $15 under their rules,” he said.
Rathbun says gun rights protect all the others.
“The reason we have the Second Amendment is to protect our private property. If you can’t protect your private property, the rest of the rights don’t mean much of anything,” said Rathbun.
He believes a Clinton presidency would only accelerate the government targeting the freedoms of Americans.
“I think under a Clinton presidency, that liberty and those private property rights would be continued to be infringed upon, and I think at an accelerated rate over what President Obama has done,” said Rathbun.
Rathbun is not a huge Trump fan. In addition to disagreeing with the GOP nominee on the minimum wage, he vigorously disagrees with Trump on eminent domain. Rathbun says he understands why Trump likes the practice from a real estate development perspective, but he says eminent domain has gotten way out of hand.
Noting that eminent domain makes sense for projects that serve the “common good” so long as property owners are fairly compensated, Rathbun says it is too often abused.
“Communities are exercising eminent domain so that private companies and developers can develop the land. They’re justifying that from an increase in property taxes, maybe even an increase in income taxes from jobs, but I disagree with eminent domain outside of absolute necessities like road and bridges,” said Rathbun.
While saying he hates one-issue campaigns, this one boils down to who is chosen to safeguard our liberties on the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This is the ultimate federal court that is there to interpret the Constitution and protect our rights. The Supreme Court should not be political but we all know it is. Everybody says it’s 4-4 right now. Well, it shouldn’t be. It should be 8-0 on protecting our Constitution and the rights therein,” said Rathbun.
“Who is likely to give us the Supreme Court nominees who will protect our liberty for the next 30-40 years,” said Rathbun.
