Beware of enemies of property rights bearing pallid imitations of the real thing.

Californians face an alternative on the upcoming June ballot: protect their private property, or expose it to the continued attack of politicians and private entities seeking easy ill-gotten gain.

Proposition 98 is the real thing. It would outlaw taking private property for private use. It defines “just compensation” in detail so that persons who lose property to a public use have a better chance of being fairly compensated. It would enable the original owner of a property to buy it back if it was grabbed under false pretenses. And Prop 98 also phases out rent control.

All this is spelled out in California’s official ballot summary. But opponents complained about the official title — “Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property” — saying it doesn’t mention the ban on rent control. Which is, however, clearly stated in the summary. In any case, the courts have rebuffed this attempt to undermine the measure.

Opponents prefer Proposition 99, a much more limited measure. It states that eminent domain may not be abused to steal an “owner-occupied residence.” So Prop 99 basically sanctions the state’s grabbing of small businesses — or any property for any purpose at all if you happen not to live there.

Sorry, 99. But you’re not the right choice for real advocates of property rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

For 18 years, the U.S. government studied algae as a source for biofuel, giving up over a decade ago because managing pond scum was just too hard.

Ah, but algae is just too efficient a source of oil to let it fizzle.

Plant physiologist and multiple patent holder Glen Kertz has figured out a way to manage algae growth and harvest.

Forget ponds. Place the algae in plastic bags and line them up vertically. Like corn, I guess.

Except that corn is amazingly inefficient at producing biofuel. Yeah, the government is subsidizing ethanol grown from corn. But farmers only get 20 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Kertz estimates 100,000 gallons per year from his method, which he calls Vertigro.

Vertical rows of algae-and-water bags move on conveyor belts to maximize sunlight. And, if this research pans out, it won’t be just algae moving, it will be Kertz’s own wealth moving upwards.

The project is a joint venture with Global Green Solutions, a Canadian alternative energy company. They’ve invested about $5 million in a Texas facility, where right now they’re trying to figure out which kind of algae makes which kind of biofuel best.

Now our government is getting involved in algae research, again. But we’ve dumped so much money into scummy ponds, and on almost certain failures like corn ethanol, that at this point subsidy seems a waste.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

A Daily Oklahoman editorial laments the killing of a bill that would have created a task force to study the state’s initiative process, writing, “The initiative petition process in Oklahoma is in need of a fix.”

That’s why Representative Randy Terrill sponsored the bill. Which passed the House 86 yays to only 11 nays. But in the Senate, evenly divided between the parties, the Democrats stopped it.

As Norma Sapp, head of Oklahomans for Initiative Rights said, “This bill would simply allow legislators to find out the facts . . . and to discuss possible solutions. How can anyone be against having more information?”

Does seem a bit odd, no?

The editorial suggested, “That the bill got shelved is evidence the status quo on this issue suits some policy-makers just fine.”

Turns out, as a Democratic senator admitted, it was Attorney General Drew Edmondson who furiously lobbied behind-the-scenes against the task force.

Yes, this is the same Drew Edmondson who is persecuting the Oklahoma Three - that is, Yours Truly and two colleagues - seeking to imprison us for ten years for working on a petition drive. There’s more on our case at FreePaulJacob.com.

Edmondson also refuses to investigate instances of real petition fraud that have been brought to his office. Why? Well, it could be that the facts would hurt his case in a court challenge against Oklahoma’s petition law.

If you oppose answers, you don’t want any questions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Expensive coffee is my besetting sin. But the hugely successful Starbucks — which I’ve defended before — recently did something so oddly irksome that maybe I’ll get a handle on my occasional vice.

Starbucks offers a debit-card-like “customer card” that allows you to pay for your purchases in advance. Or to give coffee to the Starbucks addicts on your gift list.

This is a great marketing gimmick . . . to which I’ve never succumbed. So I had to read about the controversy from David Boaz of the Cato Institute in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.

A friend of David’s got a card. And he went to Starbucks’s website to get it going. Starbucks offered to “customize” his card with a personalized motto that the website says would make the card “as unique as you are.”

David’s friend chose the motto “Laissez-faire.”

That means “leave us alone.” It’s the living expression of tolerance and lack of regulation, often used in conjunction with free-market capitalism.

Great slogan. I use it. It fits with other ideas of tolerance I have, too, the common, more liberal ones about free speech and such.

Unfortunately, Starbucks wouldn’t print the slogan. It was rejected.

They let plenty of leftist political slogans see printing, but not “laissez-faire”!

It makes me want to leave Starbucks alone.

Hmmm . . . Starbucks has competitors. Maybe I’ll try one.

That’s “laissez-faire.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Dentistry! What a job, sticking fingers into opened mouths. Probing. Drilling. Filling. Ugh.

And it must not be easy managing patients, or clients, or whatever they call the people who pay their bills.

It’s bad enough here in America; It is obviously much harder in Britain, where dentists were just told to go on vacation. By the government. Why? They had filled their work quotas. Even while millions — yes, millions — of English people can’t get in to see any dentist!

Dentistry is socialized in Britain. The government hires the dentists. Tax money — not patients directly — pay for the dental work.

So no wonder there aren’t enough dentists in Britain, and why British teeth, in general, are getting worse, even though the service is “free of charge.”

Just try to provide a free service using tax monies — you still can’t void the laws of scarcity and value by edict. If you want something, you still have to pay for it. You still have to invest. Scarce resources must go from some use and be put to another.

The trouble, as economists starting with the Austrian Ludwig von Mises have shown, is that when you try to run things by bureaucracy, forfeiting private means of production and capitalist investment and competitive markets, you give up some amazingly effective tools to organize scarce resources. And you are left with guesswork. And politics.

And, under socialized medicine, bad teeth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.