The Conundrum of a Referendum

ByBrian Phillips

In November, a “Right to Food” referendum will be on the ballot in Maine. If approved, the Declaration of Rights in Maine’s constitution would be amended:

All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being, as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.

Supporters argue that the fill would shift power from corporate food interests to individual Mainers.

Critics claim that it would allow individuals to claim exemptions to laws prohibiting animal abuse, as well as zoning regulations. “This particular amendment seems to place above any other law the right of individuals to acquire food in any manner they deem appropriate,” said a veterinarian and opponent of the bill. This statement is a package-deal that is partially true and partially false.

Individual rights protect our freedom to act (including acquiring food) as we deem appropriate, so long as we respect the freedom of others to do the same. Rights are not a license to act on any whim or desire, but rather, rights provide a boundary on what others may do to us and our property.

This particular issue is complicated by the fact that zoning and laws against animal abuse should not exist. Animal abuse is despicable, we should ostracize anyone who engages in such actions. But it should not be a criminal offense. Animals do not have rights.

This is just another example of the seemingly hopeless situation we can find ourselves in when the concept of rights is misunderstood or perverted. A flawed view of rights can lead one to conclude that rights conflict—when one individual’s rights are protected another’s rights must be violated.

But rights do not conflict. Rights protect our freedom to act as we choose. No matter what we do, so long as we refrain from using physical force against others, they remain free to act as they choose. This is true of land use, as well as acquiring food.

Similar Posts

  • The Nihilism of BLM

    ByBrian Phillips

    In mid-August, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters marched through a Seattle neighborhood demanding that the white property owners give up their homes. The neighborhood, which has undergone gentrification, was once predominantly black. One protester said, Give black people back their homes! You’re sitting there comfortably — comfortable as f—k as if they didn’t help gentrify…

  • Abbott’s Consistency

    ByBrian Phillips

    Like most of the nation’s governors, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared a state of emergency when the pandemic first started. He then promptly shut down much of the state’s economy in an effort to stop the spread of the coronavirus. A year later, Abbott was one of the first governors to remove mask mandates and…

  • The “Self-Absorbed” Generation

    Byjbp

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on November 24, 2009. Comments have not been migrated. An OpEd by William Klemm, a professor at Texas A&M, in Sunday’s Chronicle declares that today’s youth are “self-absorbed” because of technology. According to the article, developments such as cell phones, Facebook, and text messaging breed laziness, narcissism, and…