"Libertarian centralism" advocates using the federal constitution - specifically, the 14th amendment - to strike down state and local laws deemed contradictory to individual rights. The anti-centralism argument, frequently expressed by libertarian attorney Stephan Kinsella, holds that expanding federal power is not a valid means of protecting individual liberty. Centralism proponents, in turn, respond by accusing anti-centralists of supporting an incorrect reading of the constitution (not to mention a host of historical evils like slavery).

I've never been terribly interested in whose interpretation of the constitution is "correct." It strikes me as a very backwards-looking approach to defending individual rights. Centralist arguments tend to remind me of the old television series "Quantum Leap," where a time-traveling scientist switched places with people from the past and "corrected" the mistakes they made. If only we could go back and properly interpret the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the centralists argue, we'd have a more libertarian society today. Oh, boy.

The danger of a constitution-based approach to individual rights is that people are constantly referencing the words of the past rather then looking at their actions in the present. Here in Charlottesville, the home of Thomas Jefferson, this problem has come to the forefront in recent weeks thanks to the local "Tea Party" movement and a conservative "civil rights" organization that view property rights as a threat to the sanctity of the First Amendment.

In 2008, voters in Virginia's fifth congressional district ousted longtime Republican Rep. Virgil Goode, replacing him with Democrat Tom Perriello. Perriello's office in a small, downtown Charlottesville building has become the focal point for anti-Democratic activists such as the Jefferson Area Tea Party. While these protest groups claim to be pro-business, they've proven harmful to the businesses that share the building with Perriello's office. Lisa Provence reported in The Hook:

 

Victoria Snapp, owner of Three Esthetics, a downtown salon, was growing concerned when some of her regular customers started skipping appointments, and it became apparent politics were causing trouble for her upscale hair coiffery.

"It was turning into a nightmare," says Snapp. "Last week," she says in mid-November, "we had three different assemblies, and the smallest was 17 to 20 people."

It seems that the pro-business protesters who regularly swarm the parking lot to give an earful to Congressman Tom Perriello, Snapp's neighbor in the Glass Building, were putting the hurt on her business.

"We're a full service spa," she explains. "You want to get a massage to step away from the world. The last thing you want to do is go through a screaming crowd while trying to relax."

It wasn't just screaming. On November 10, a bus with a public address system was blaring music that could be heard inside Snapp's treatment room, as health-care reform protesters and counter-protesters tried to outdo each other.

"Here we are trying to peacefully enjoy our business," says Snapp, "and there's no consideration."...

...Snapp tells a reporter that she repeatedly and respectfully asked protesters not to block the parking area, where she pays $100 per space - to no avail.

At one recent protest, the Americans for Prosperity bus snagged eight spaces - without paying a cent for the privilege, Snapp confirms.

The price of parking doesn't tell the whole story. Landlord Lisa Murphy estimates that when a would-be customer is turned away, that costs a business about $150.

Murphy eventually called the police, and the protesters were told to stay on the sidewalk, about 100 yards from the building. This didn't sit well with local conservative "civil rights" leader John Whitehead, who naturally viewed the protesters' First Amendment "rights" as superior to the mere property rights of Murphy and her tenants:

Whitehead calls the location of the Congressman's office on private property "disingenuous," and adds, "That's been used by a lot of people to avoid protesters."

He mentions abortion providers who locate clinics in private, high-rise buildings. "It's an old tactic," says Whitehead.

Citing something called the "heckler's veto," he also questions whether Three Esthetics represents the entire building. "Hecklers," says Whitehead, "cannot veto free speech."

Whitehead is also interested in the situation of Josh Lambert, who's with the UVA College Republicans. Lambert was told by police November 17 he could either stand on the sidewalk or inside Perriello's office.

"It's got nothing to do with property rights," says Lambert. "Sure, the landlady owns the building. But who pays for his office? It's our property. I own a stake in Congressman Perriello's office."

Whitehead followed up with a letter to Perriello demanding the congressman "facilitate your constituents in exercising their rights to petition, speak and demonstrate" by relocating his office to "a place where citizens' rights...may not be squelched by the fiat of an individual or individuals who are attempting to protect their private property interests..."

Now, I'm no civil rights attorney, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the First Amendment - which simply prohibits Congress, as a body, from infringing upon free speech and expression - either requires an individual congressman to locate his office in a particular type of building or permits individuals to trespass on private property merely because a congressman is present. Lambert's argument that he owns "a stake in Congressman Perriello's office" is disingenuous. Perriello never restricted access to his own office. Lambert is claiming "a stake" in the entire building, including the parking lot, which belongs to Lisa Murphy.

Whitehead can spin this as a First Amendment issue all he wants; the truth is, he's merely spreading a false victim mentality among people who seem to have nothing better to do than harass small business owners. There's no "conflict" here between property rights and free speech. This is obvious to anyone who doesn't rely on the federal constitution to define his or her sense of right and wrong.

I'm not suggesting that all, or even most, constitutional enthusiasts (or libertarian centralists) support Whitehead's interpretation of the First Amendment. But here's the thing: If we look at this situation applying simple libertarian principles, there's clearly no problem; Once the sacred constitution is introduced as a reference point, however, a completely nonsensical "conflict" sounds plausible to a sizable group of people. This means defenders of individual rights have to fight against not just those who oppose us outright, but also those who claim to support us under a discredited historical document that can support any cockamamie definition of "rights" you choose.

"Libertarian centralism" isn't bad because it proposes a false reading of the constitution. It's bad because it teaches us to look to the constitution as a source of rights in the first place. The Perriello office affair is merely a cautionary tale about the dangers of such thinking.

(Originally published at Mises Economics Blog.)