The Classic Liberal Blog

Last week, S.M. Oliva posted an interesting story on the Mises Economics Blog about Lynne Munson, arguing on National Review Online that "the state should ignore property rights when it comes to protecting 'art' -- in this case the notoriously ugly Third Church of Christ, Scientist building in Washington, DC. The church wants to tear its own building down. But not so fast, says Munson .. "

Nevermind that the property had been paid for by the church, and belongs to the church ... "we're all collectivists now!" Here's Munson's argument (emphasis added):

Someone who owns a Van Gogh could choose to destroy it. But only the most rights-obsessed among us would defend that decision. Art objects aren't like most commodities. Sure, they are "owned," but that ownership is temporary since the lifetimes of great objects far outstretch our own. That is, unless the temporary owner of an object destroys it. Then it's gone.

The church under discussion is no Van Gogh ... But it is a structure that possesses unique artistic value greater than most every building for blocks around it.

I should know. I work a block away from the Third Church in the kind of unremarkable D.C. office building that occupies the lion's share of space in the district. It is a tedious structure, devoid of any aesthetic appeal or interest. The architect who designed it brought the same level of artistic curiosity to the job that a steamroller brings to the task of flattening asphalt. Inevitably, more such buildings will be built. So don't we want to consider hanging on to the smattering of structures that intrigue our eyes and make us talk.

I know that most readers of NRO, like myself, believe completely in creativity and democratic power of the market ... But, at the same time, I do not think that the market should be the sole determiner of what we do with our built environment.

Just about everything "far outstrech[es]" our own lifetimes.  So what?  A farm, a building, art, jewelry, coins, etc. can all outlive the human who created it.  We all die, and these things all change ownership when we die too.

Taking her "logic" to the extreme: Owning your car, or even a pair of jeans is "temporary."  Are we to check with the State before throwing out an old, tattered and torn pair of jeans?

Besides, just who exactly is it, that determines what "possesses unique artistic value," or what does not?  Personally, I think the building in question is butt-ugly, and apparently its owners do too. Should we all check with Munson first, before demolishing something that is rightfully ours?

"Rights-obssessed" ... How pathetic.  Lynne Munson is State-obessessed!  Who needs them stinkin' rights, when we have Those Who Know Better Than Us, like Munson?

Olivia sums it up perfectly:

Munson is articulating what amounts to a reverse-IP argument. If an item of tangible property is deemed unique or aesthetically interesting, it ceases to exist as private property and becomes owned in perpetuity by "the public." This is a good deal if you're the government agent placed in charge of deciding what should and should not be preserved as "great objects."

Comically -- and since this is National Review we're dealing with -- Munson insists she really loves free markets, except when they conflict with her personal tastes.

History is full of things built, as well as things destroyed.  But I guess the Statists want to control history along with the weather, health care, and income too!  I guess people like her believe "we the people" should just stop thinking for ourselves altogether.  Hey, she's intellectually superior (in her mind) to those stupid church members ...

D.C. Lets Church Tear Down Brutalist Atrocity

In the eternal battle between the people who live in the city and an arrogant elite who think they know better, score one for the people: Mayor Adrian Fenty's representative yesterday sided decisively with members of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, ruling that they must be allowed to worship in the church building of their own choice, despite efforts by historic preservationists to landmark the much-loathed structure.

D.C. planning director Harriet Tregoning has ruled that historic preservation zealots trying to force the church to keep its concrete bunker of a building on 16th Street NW near the White House were wrong and that the city must grant the church a permit to demolish its faceless, spiritually deadening 1971 building so that the church's members can afford to build a new downtown church more suited to expressing and celebrating their religious faith.

Although many hours of testimony in the hearings before Tregoning centered on the church's claim that the District government has no right to tell a religious institution what kind of building it must have, the mayor's agent steered clear of any discussion of First Amendment rights, limiting herself to the economic burden the church would face if forced to hold onto a landmarked building.

The bulldozing of the Third Church will be a huge victory for common sense and for the rights of property owners against a small band of preservation extremists.

That this whole thing even go to court, keeps me wondering ... does freedom matter to Americans anymore?  Maybe I'm the last of a dying breed.