Letter: Property rights worth fighting to protect

To the editor:

I totally agree with the civil protests actions demonstrated by the Tate family, (“Family suspends trailer in tree to protest city rules,” March 2). I have been trying to convince the city of Greenwood to respect homeowners’ rights with no success.

The “good taste” ordinances are unequally enforced. Some are granted exemptions from the ordinances, where others lose property ownership rights to a bureaucratic city government. Known and willfully uncorrected unequal government treatment is most dishonest. This is the worst of government.

The Tate family shows that property rights are worth protecting and fighting to protect. More people should fight intrusive government infringing upon their rights. Our country’s founders strongly believed that government should not randomly claim they don’t like the looks of your property and take your property rights.

The teaching of Carl Marx follows our city government actions as both promote government control over individual rights. Ben Franklin and other founding fathers believed that an individual’s rights don’t end until they interfere with another person’s rights. One not liking the looks of a camper, car, bicycle or children is not an interference with others’ rights.

Yes, we would all like to enforce our “good taste” on others. But in a civil society we respect others’ taste and rights. Greenwood city government does not respect citizen property rights as demonstrated against the Tate family and others.

I hope others will follow the example of the Tates as they work to protect property rights against this intrusive, subjective and unequally enforced city action.

Dale Marmaduke