“Not property?” LOL!
What do you think makes up a property right? The words of the Constitution are very clear, and confirms the essence of the bundle of rights which make up a property right.
Property rights predate the Constitution and are among the most precious rights that human beings possess. It’s what separates a free society from a Communist one.
It is quite telling that you are so cavalier in pretending that the right doesn’t exist, presumably because you want to steal what belongs to others.
You laugh too easily.
I suggest you actually investigate the history of patent and copyright law, and how such things were understood at the time of the American Founding.
Property rights predate the Constitution, but the notion that a copyright or patent constituted property is an invention of the late 19th century as I have pointed out before. All forms of what the Founders would have recognized as property have the quality that possession of them by one person denies another of possession: if I own a house, you do not; if you have a (particular) gold sovereign, I do not. Theft necessarily deprives the rightful owner of the enjoyment of the property stolen.
If another wealthy family had built an exact copy of The Breakers, the unoriginal family would not have stolen the Vanderbilts’ Newport residence.
Not so with so-called “intellectual property” — what is called “piracy” does not, like actual piracy on the high seas, deprive anyone of the thing copied, but at most deprives someone (usually not the Author or Inventor) of monopoly rents (and only then under the assumption that the “pirate” would actually have bought a copy were a free one not available). I am not, however, much interested in “piracy”, but in the harmful effect reifying patent and copyright as “property” that can be bought and sold has had on the advance of culture, most especially the creation of derivative works in the arts and the analogous sort of progress in science and technology. Tech companies as lawsuit factories and not being able to use Robert Frost’s poetry as lyrics are not desirable outcomes.
Had the Founder thought of it as “property”, what’s with the limited term qualification? Real estate, furniture, particular physical books, and everything else that the Founders would recognize as property passes from one owner to another until it ceases to exist or the world ends. Rent-seeking publishers and such calling patents and copyrights “property” even though they have inveigled courts to join them in this conceit, does not make it so.
A question for you since you appeal to the pre-existence of the notion of property at the time of the American Founding: under what circumstances would you regard a monopoly granted by a medieval kings or princes to a tradesman to produce and sell a particular product within the prince’s domain to be property?
a) if the monopoly were for a limited term and not transferable?
b) if the monopoly were for a limited term and could be inherited by the tradesman’s son, but not sold or granted to another by the tradesman?
c) if the monopoly were for an unlimited term and could be inherited by the tradesman’s son, but not sold or granted to another by the tradesman?
d) if the monopoly were for a limited term and could be inherited by the tradesman’s son, and freely sold or granted to another by the tradesman?
e) if the monopoly were for an unlimited term and could be inherited by the tradesman’s son, and freely sold or granted to another by the tradesman?
In which cases would it make a difference if the monarch made the grant irrevocable or retained the right to give the monopoly to another or permit competition?