OCPAC – SQ 777: Right to Farm or Harm?
John Michener
1. SQ 777: Right to Farm or Harm?
2. Upcoming Programs
3. Defenders of Liberty Awards
1. SQ 777: Right to Farm or Harm? Before analyzing the “Right to Farm” amendment, we must call to mind the moral principles involved. In our view, any law that is not moral should not be law.
The right to own and control property is a natural and unalienable right. It has been recognized since the dawn of man, and law codes throughout human history have attempted to protect private property.
The right to property is an extension of the principle that you own your own body. If you have a right to your own body, then by extension, you have a right to the property that you create and obtain with your body. Does the law recognize and protect your bodily rights and property rights? It should.
We all recognize that you are free to use and control your own body as you wish unless that use harms another person or property. In the same way, you are free to use and control your own property as you wish unless that use harms another person or property. The purpose of the law is to provide recourse when harm to person or property does occur. If you or your property are harmed by another person’s actions, you will have recourse in a court of law. This principle obviously applies to farming practices. If the way in which a farm is being operated harms another person’s property (land, water, livestock, production, etc.), then these violations will be handled in court under existing statute and common law.
These are the fundamental principles we must remember as we consider the “Right to Farm” amendment. Will this amendment protect property rights or violate property rights? Let us take a closer look.
Here is the pertinent part (only three sentences) of the proposed new Section 38 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution:
[1] The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest. [2] Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. [3] Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or affect any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014.
Let us analyze these three simple sentences in reverse order. Sentence number three says this amendment will not change any law enacted by the Legislature or its bureaucracy prior to the end of 2014. Therefore, if the state was already violating property rights by restricting non-harmful farming practices, or by regulating or mandating certain practices, then this proposal will provide no recourse, protection, or correction.
Sentence number two encompasses all of the other laws and policies which affect property and says they, too, are excluded from change. So, the state can still steal property through eminent domain, and there is still no protection against unconstitutional federal mandates. Every branch of the federal government, and most of its bureaucracy, violates property rights and state constitutions on a regular basis.
Sentence number one is the clincher. Supporters of the amendment focus on the first half of the sentence which reads, “The Legislature shall pass no law…” That sounds good, but that clause has a qualifying phrase: “without a compelling interest of the state.”
This
amendment is doing exactly the opposite of what the people want. Rather than protect the people from the
state, it explicitly empowers the state to regulate every farming practice by
simply claiming a state interest.
What if your neighbor said, “I will never adjust the carburetor on your muscle car without your permission unless I have a personal interest”? What if your neighbor said, “I will never reformat the hard drive of your computer without your permission unless I have a personal interest”? What if your neighbor said, “I will never cut your golf clubs shorter without your permission unless I have a personal interest”? You see where this goes.
Big corporate farms most likely line up in support of this amendment because they can afford to hire an army of lawyers who will define “compelling interest of the state.” They can afford full-time lobbyists to make sure the laws that are passed in the “compelling interest of the state” are also in the interests of the big corporate farms, but not necessarily in the interests of small farmers who cannot afford attorney fees to defend themselves against the axis powers of the Legislature, corporations, and courts.
If you own a small family farm and you want to protect your property, the answer is to fight. Fight every individual statute, mandate, law, policy, or regulation which violates your property. The answer is not to give your competition and your feudal overlord the weapon to destroy you.
Do you really believe the state will not claim an interest in farming? The state already claims an interest in economic development, so it owns, controls, and regulates business. The state already claims an interest in healthcare, so it owns, controls, and regulates medical products and services. The state already claims an interest in education, so it owns, controls, and regulates schools. The state already claims an interest in energy production, so it controls and regulates the companies who use oil, natural gas, coal, wind, and water to produce and deliver energy.
Remember, the dominant secular humanist worldview says that land and people are resources to be managed by the state. Do you not see that the state will claim an interest in feeding its people? Mark these words: You will hear politicians say, “We must make sure people are fed a nutritious diet, and we cannot trust ignorant farmers to know what is best. We cannot trust Big Farms to care about the little guy; they only care about profits. Therefore, we must regulate farming.” All of this will be in concert with the biggest farms providing the biggest campaign contributions, expanding crony capitalism in our state to yet another industry.
Too bad we cannot pass an amendment which says, “The Legislature shall pass no law…PERIOD.”
Passing State Question 777 will hasten the day when the state takes control of farming in the same way that it controls health care, education, and energy. How do you like those outcomes? Vote NO on SQ 777, the “Right to Harm.”
Note: We will host a debate on SQ 777 on October 12. See details below.
2. Upcoming Programs. If you have never attended one of our weekly “church services,” you are missing something special. We currently meet on Wednesdays at noon at Mama Roja Mexican Kitchen on the east side of Lake Hefner where Britton Road runs into the lake. Between now and the general election, we are interviewing candidates for the Oklahoma Legislature and focusing on the State Questions which will appear on the ballot. Here is the upcoming schedule:
September 21: Kevin McDugle is the Republican for HD 12 (Wagoner) vacated by term-limited Demonrat Rep. Wade Rousselot. JJ Humphrey is the Republican for HD 19 (Atoka, Bryan, Choctaw, Pushmataha) vacated by term-limited Demonrat Rep. R.C. Pruett. Kyle Hilbert is the Republican for HD 29 (Creek, Tulsa) vacated by Republican Rep. James Leewright.
September 28: Joe Griffin is the Republican for HD 92 (Oklahoma) vacated by term-limited Demonrat Rep. Richard Morrissette. Tonni Canaday is the Republican for HD 97 (Oklahoma) vacated by term-limited Demonrat Rep. Mike Shelton. Rick West is the Republican for HD 3 (LeFlore) vacated by Demonrat James Lockhart.
October 5: Trevor Loudon is the producer and star of a new political documentary, The Enemies Within. In his new film, Loudon asks, “Could Hillary Clinton pass an FBI security check?” The film is designed to warn American voters about how neo-communism works to undermine the national security of the United States from within. Loudon's research exposes why crucial decisions made in the highest seats of the federal government often prove disastrous for America.
October 12: OCPAC will host a debate on the controversial State Question 777, the “Oklahoma Right to Farm” Amendment. Roy Lee Lindsey, Executive Director for the Oklahoma Pork Council, will speak in favor of the amendment. Speaking against the amendment will be former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. We anticipate a huge crowd on this date, so come early to get a seat and a plate for the chicken fajita buffet.
October 19: Trent England, from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, will explain the nuances and implications of State Questions 780 and 781, “Criminal Justice Reform.”
October 26: Is the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority an unaccountable, crooked hotbed of crony capitalism? How was OTA originally structured and designed to function by legislative statute? What ought to be done with OTA in a perfect world from a moral perspective? We will attempt to answer these questions when Tom Elmore, Executive Director of the North American Transportation Institute, presents an explanation and expose’ of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.
November 9: Join us for The Day After to gawk and comment on the disaster. P. Andrew Sandlin, from the Center for Cultural Leadership, will join us for election analysis.
3. Defenders of Liberty. Established in 2013, the Defenders of Liberty: Grassroots Activism Awards is an annual awards banquet organized for grassroots activists in Oklahoma. The banquet is this Saturday, September 24, at 6:00 PM at the Double Tree Hotel in downtown Tulsa. Details and registration are here.
Additional Notes
· Join our Facebook group.
· Become an OCPAC member with this form.
· We currently meet on Wednesdays at noon at Mama Roja Mexican Kitchen.
· The views expressed in this email are the personal opinion of John Michener and do not necessarily reflect the views of OCPAC, its leadership team, or its members.