# Measure 2's Assault on Freedom



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://www.policynd.org/index.php?%2Fsi ... freedom%2F

Measure 2's Assault on Freedom
Monday, October 18, 2010
Standard Article by Brent Bartsch
Issue: Property Rights

The group calling themselves North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase has been advocating an initiated measure banning commercialized game farming for several years now. Recently, the group was able to collect enough signatures to put it on this November's ballot as Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2. Now, whether one favors patronizing deer and elk ranchers is their own personal choice (at least it is for right now) and beside the point. The point is that this measure is an assault on private property rights and thus on freedom. Perhaps the best illustration of this is an email sent out by the Chair of the Sponsoring Committee for the measure, Mr. Roger Kaseman, on October 2nd. While attempting to debate the opponents of his group's measure, the reasoning used is contemptuous of the basic foundations of the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. To give him the full benefit of his own words, his email is quoted at length:



> "The High Fence Canned Hunt Operators claim an absolute right to do with their property what they want. They argue that Measure 2 will violate their property rights. That sounds good, but is fallacious and misleading. A right must have a Constitutional origin."


This is squarely at odds with the American tradition of natural and inalienable rights. Government is created to protect the rights of men (and women) - not to grant them their rights. This is also why so-called positive rights, which are dreamed up by politicians and bestow benefits on one group at the expense of another group, are anathema to traditional or so-called negative rights. In order for government to grant someone a positive right or benefit, they must necessarily violate other persons' traditional (negative) rights.

The fact that state constitutions sometimes list (negative) rights is thus redundant, but done in order to provide emphasis. This can be thought of in much the same way as the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were thought to be redundant, because the federal government was not granted the power to infringe on speech or on the right to bear arms in the original document.



> "The United States Constitution does not establish the property right the Canned Hunt operators claim. The authors of the Constitution did not write property rights into the document because Southern delegates claimed human beings as property. Northern delegates would not agree to the right to buy, sell or own human beings. North and South agreed to leave property rights to the individual states."


While no one should claim that the U.S. Constitution grants property rights - remember, the American tradition is such that our rights do not come from government - this is a tortured interpretation of constitutional history. The dispute cited above actually had more to do with how slaves would be counted for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives (because of the repercussions that would have on the distribution of political power in the new federal government) and less to do about slavery itself - unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is true that the broad police powers were left to the individual states, thus leaving the states with the ability to take away property rights via legislation if they so chose. But, like we wish the Southern States had not denied slaves their natural property right of self-ownership, freedom would be greatly enhanced if states used this power sparingly, such as by refraining from banning commercial game farms.



> "Article 1, Section 1 of North Dakota state constitution, states that an individual has the right to, '&#8230;. acquire, possess, and protect property&#8230;.'"


Again, the state constitution is just reiterating that individuals have the right to property. Governments can protect rights and they can take away rights through laws, but they can not create them. If the North Dakota constitution was silent on the issue, the right to property would still exist.



> "The right to acquire and possess comes with the duty to protect. Society, not the individual property owner, decides how best to protect property. An individual can't buy a piece of property and bury toxic waste simply by asserting a property right. Society decides where we bury toxic waste, not individual land owners based of (sic) a phony property right."


This shows nothing but confusion. The right to property does not require that an individual protect her property, no more than the 2nd Amendment requires an individual to own a gun. That is the whole point of property rights - it is up to the owner to decide what shall be done. Moreover, in the example cited, "society" (i.e., government) is not deciding how to protect property (as if all property is collectively owned by the government), but is instead defending the property rights of others. While the vast majority of people would not bury toxic waste in their backyard (it tends to ruin home values), the exercise of the police power of a state in order to prevent violation of others' property rights is vastly different than what Kaseman's group wants to do. As opposed to defending the property rights of others, Measure 2 would violate the property rights of others. In other words, Measure 2 is the toxic waste.



> "Property rights are subordinate to the due process of law. The people, through their elected representatives or by initiated measure, decide what that law will be.


 In 2000, Montana voters passed a voter initiated measure that outlawed Canned Hunt operations. Montana High Fence operators filed suit claiming the measure violated their rights. They lost in District Court, the Montana Supreme Court, the United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the United States Supreme Court. Lawyers for the Canned Hunt operators could not cite a single court case that supported the argument that the Montana Measure violated any right."

Yes, the states can take away property rights. This is widely acknowledged. But Kaseman's group needs to admit that their measure means to take away property rights, instead of pretending otherwise by saying such things as, "They [opponents] argue that Measure 2 will violate their property rights. That sounds good, but is fallacious and misleading."



> "Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution declares that: 'Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.' [Emphasis in the original.]


 Penning selectively bred, hand raised, hand fed deer and elk inside an escape proof fence and selling a guaranteed shot at the animal threatens our hunting heritage in direct violation of Section 27."

Apparently, it doesn't violate Article 11, Section 27. That is why this group finds it necessary to pass a new law. It is also terribly unclear how commercial game farms - essentially, the domestication of animals - threatens hunting. There are a lot of things in our modern world that threaten hunting to some degree, but this is analogous to saying that chicken farmers threaten grouse and pheasant hunting. If anything, commercial game farms expand the opportunity for city dwellers and others, such as those who have handicaps, to get some experience, albeit much less than on a wild hunt, with the reality of how their dinner gets served.

In conclusion, with twisted logic, a confused understanding of history, particularly in regards to the American tradition of natural liberty, and contradictory statements, Kaseman pretty much runs the gauntlet of ridiculousness with this one. Instead of trying to bamboozle the public with this nonsense, he should stick to talking about his group's main point - killing animals is cruel - and leave it at that. However, while this would please the Humane Society of the United States, it seems unlikely that this message would do as well with the North Dakota electorate at large.

Brent Bartsch is an NDPC economic policy fellow.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

LT,

What is the ND Policy Council? Here are a a few quotes from their website.



> The North Dakota Policy Council (NDPC) is a liberty-based think tank focused on North Dakota solutions to North Dakota's problems. We provide credible nonpartisan expertise and research to help North Dakotans advocate policies that are based on individual liberty, individual responsibility, and limited government.
> 
> The NDPC seeks to broaden policy debates beyond the belief that government intervention should be the avenue of first, rather than last, resort. We believe that:
> 
> ...





> The North Dakota Policy Council is in the business of ideas. But sometimes you need more than good ideas. Sometimes you need a good lawyer. The mission of the NDPC Center for Constitutional Law is to protect the rights of North Dakotans. We recognize that in many instances state constitutions offer the strongest protections of individual liberty. Unfortunately, the North Dakota constitution's protections of individual liberty and limitations on government power have been eroded or simply ignored by government.


This doesn't sound like an organization I want representing me, but I can see where you get sucked into their hype.

Jim


----------



## gunattic (Jan 9, 2005)

jhegg said:


> This doesn't sound like an organization I want representing me, but I can see where you get sucked into their hype.
> 
> Jim


Sounds like a group that should be running the country. What didn't you like.. the fact that they are for choosing government control last? Or am I the one misunderstanding this?? Did I miss something?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gunattic,

Here are two of the things I don't like about this organization, in regards to what the high fence crowd wants.



> * Government can only give to one person what it takes away from another, and that the power to give presumes the power to take.


So what does this mean? That government should not "give to" or "take from" anybody. The high fence crowd states the high fence initiative is about taking away their "property rights". They infer that "property rights" are under absolute control of the landowner. This is not the case. Government has the right and the obligation to regulate what people can and can not do on their property.



> Unfortunately, the North Dakota constitution's protections of individual liberty and limitations on government power have been eroded or simply ignored by government.


How handy for the high fence crowd. By regulating their activities, "protections of individual liberty and limitations on government power have been eroded or simply ignored by government." Do you see what I mean?

Jim


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Jim, I think you are on the wrong side of the "fence" here. This organization sounds like it should have been running the government long ago, we wouldn't be facing the problems we are facing now. This is on a much more broad front than just the ND elitists for only killing select animals behind a fence group's sad measure.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

by Savage260,



> Jim, I think you are on the wrong side of the "fence" here. This organization sounds like it should have been running the government long ago, we wouldn't be facing the problems we are facing now. This is on a much more broad front than just the ND elitists for only killing select animals behind a fence group's sad measure.


Of course you think I am on the wrong side of the fence. You are inside the fence and in the pocket of the high fence crowd. You can not think any other way.

Jim


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Savage isnt alone. If the Fair Chase organization is a non-profit group, can we get a copy of their financial report?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Of course you can - go to the ND Sec. Of State website.

Jim


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Just what name are you registered under?? Nothing comes up with the names listed so far....Under cover??


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Apparently not a Non-profit corporation

From the Sec of State directly,,,

They are not registered as a nonprofit corporation. However, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is registered as a political Measures Committee, in accordance with state law. I have pasted below the information from the SOS website at http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspubl ... ittees.htm.

North Dakota Hunters For Fair Chase

Committee Acronym

Primary Interest

Committee Agent, Title Roger Kaseman, Chair

Mailing Address 223 Ashlee Ave

Bismarck, ND 58504

Daytime Telephone Number 701.751.0882

Registration Date in North Dakota 02/01/2010


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> by Savage260,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jim you are such an ignoramus.

How many more times are you going to say that everyone that opposes you is "in the pocket of the high fence crowd"? I freakin wish I had a dollar every time that has been used as your "go to" retort.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you gonna ask me what my connection to the high fence crowd is now too!? :eyeroll:

And if any moderator has a problem with me calling Jim an ignoramus, than feel free to delete this post. But than you damn well better go back and delete the majority of Jim's childish, petty, personal attack filled posts towards those that disagree with him.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

by barebackjack:



> Jim you are such an ignoramus.
> 
> How many more times are you going to say that everyone that opposes you is "in the pocket of the high fence crowd"? I freakin wish I had a dollar every time that has been used as your "go to" retort.
> 
> ...


As I said, these guys are a real class act (just kidding!).

Jim


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> by barebackjack:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really Jim? You wanna play the "class act" card?

Took me all of five minutes to find these "classy" posts from Mr. Class himself Jim Heggeness! :roll:



jhegg said:


> by AdamFisk:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





jhegg said:


> tk33 signature line:
> 
> tk333,
> 
> ...





jhegg said:


> *Dear BareBackJackAss*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bold added by me. And for you old foogies......to call one a "tool" is to refer to one who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem.

Jims one real class act!


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Just received the donation report from the sec of state seems as though as ol' jim didn't donate a single penny,,,,,Dick monson on the other hand dished out $7500.00.....but I suppose the Sec of State has covered this too


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

I wonder what percent of donations supporting the HF crowd came from out of state interests? I bet you will not see an answer from the HF crowd to this question. However, if they do not answer, I will1

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim I do not know that answer as I am not involved in that group so I can not provide it for you. I believe it is public information on the Sec. States site. But when you provide that number that is disclosed as required by law, please provide the amount HSUS is spending for you guys supporting your group NDH for FC's position with their ad campaign. Perhaps when you are done disclosing that you can explain why your group is accepting donations from PETA members from NY.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

What difference does it make where the contributors are from? You are confusing the issue. You are trying to ignore that the point that is trying to be made is from what "group" the $$ is coming from. HSUS may not be on paper but we all know they are helping your little cause here, deny it if you must, but you will never convince anybody here that they not are at your side.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but you will never convince anybody here that they are at your side.


 

I think they call that a Freudian slip.  Finally a chance for a little levity.


----------



## rachely476 (Oct 29, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> I think they call that a Freudian slip.  Finally a chance for a little levity.


I also think so.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

proof reader too???


----------

