(Property rights)-- The forgotten fundamental right

The Orange County Register ^ | 4 August 2002 | Steven Greenhut

[KC Burke]

I think in my post above we see the place that Property played in the State Constitutions and the founders saw the state arena as the place for Property, contract law, statute and common law and even capital crimes. The formation of the Federal Government was done with a very limited scope planned for that creature.

Federal protection and action would have been a lessening of State Government and its local responsiveness and control that would have been unthinkable.

We don't need to add protection but instead, we need to limit Federal involvement and "takings".

[Eustace]

And Walton has named us all peasants with no rights........

[Free Vulcan]

Exactly. And that is the basic premise behind probable cause. If you have nothing to hide, then why do they need to search?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

thanks for all of the pings

[Cato]

I just got Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman's(wow, a gentile and a Jew joining forces-I Love It!) new book, "The State Vs. The People" and they have a very nice "mission statement" of the Single Core Philosophy of a Police State.

Advocates of a police state believe that anything not under government control is,
by definition, out of control.

I think you can see this expressed repeatedly by our resident statists and in the remark of that cop.

You all take care,
CATO

[RightWhale]

Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society

Evidently not a popular viewpoint, but reality is often not popular.

[dcwusmc]

BRAVO!!! Love that OC Register! Thanks for this!

[TopQuark]

If it's my flag on my property then I can burn it if I darn well please.

Substittute "dog" or "child" for "flag" to see ow ridiculous this statement is.

[Roscoe]

The free lunch crowd thinks that our carefully evolved systems of property rights just appeared by magic.

[brityank]

Substittute "dog" or "child" for "flag" to see ow ridiculous this statement is.

What is ridiculous is the liberal assignment of setinent qualities to non-sentinent articles.

[brityank]

A most excellent thread; thanks for finding it.

Ping for reference and dissemination.

[Eustace]

That and people need to understand that "State" control means "elite" control.

But then there are still people who believe our government is running things in our country.

You take care too.

I'm going to do all I can to make it through this and be a witness , God willing........

[Valin]

The American public can easily grasp the constitutional concepts of "free speech," or "free exercise of religion," or the "right to peaceably assemble." By contrast, the phrase "property rights" doesn't have the same cachet - it just lies there like some arcane principle that must be debated by lawyers before we know what it really means.

With all due respect to Mr. Greenhut
free speech
Free speech for me, but not for thee, seems to be the dominate philosophy on most university campuses

free exercise of religion
A federal court jury has awarded more than $78,000, including $60,000 in punitive damages, to two Minnesota prison employees who were reprimanded for reading Bibles during mandatory staff training on gays and lesbians. After a three-day trial in U.S. District Court in St. Paul, a nine-member jury found unanimously late Thursday that the state Department of Corrections had discriminated against Thomas Altman and Ken Yackly on the basis of their religion and violated their rights to free speech and equal protection. Altman, a prison painter, and guards Yackly and Kristen Larson attended the training session at the Shakopee women's prison in 1997 although they considered it "state-sponsored propaganda" promoting homosexuality, according to their lawyers from the public-interest American Center for Law and Justice of Virginia Beach, Va. The employees read their Bibles during the training as a silent protest and later were reprimanded for "inappropriate and unprofessional conduct." Subsequently, Altman received a negative job review and Larson and Yackly were passed over for promotion. "When the state of Minnesota tried to force these employees to change their beliefs about homosexuality, the government crossed the line and violated their constitutional rights," said Francis Manion, senior counsel for the center, in a news release Friday. Larson previously settled her part of the four-year-old lawsuit out of court, said Gene Kapp, a spokesman for the center.
Good news the good guys won...this time.

right to peaceably assemble
Three words...campaign finance reform.

[First_Salute]

"!GNIP"

Many thanks; and yes, an excellent writeup.

[First_Salute]

If anybody wants it, the direct link to that article by Mr. Greenhut:

The forgotten fundamental right

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Old Fud]

There are plenty of self-styled conservatives who view property rights as an obstacle to progress or patriotism or to a "well-ordered" society.

Evidenced here, daily. Compulsory compassion os A-OK as long as everyone gives up a little of their property.

If I have nothing to hide, then I should have nothing to fear.

Another familiar mantra at the home of grassroots conservatism.

W/out property rights, there are no rights. Period.

[steve-b]

Your equation of inanimate objects with sentient living things shows you to be -- and I mean this quite literally -- a believer in voo-doo.

[TopQuark]

shows you to be -- and I mean this quite literally -- a believer in voo-doo.

Your is but one explanation. There is another, specifically: under the law, pets are chattel, yet one cannot do as one pleases, even on own property. There is nothing that violates the fundamental notions of our society from extendinf this notion to other objects (incidentally, I am bothered by this old tradition of viewing pets and chattel).

As for the speed with which you drew your conclusion, Einstein's words apply well: "For every problem there is a simple solution, which is usually wrong."

[inquest]

This is all a very nice sentiment, but it needs to be subjected to some scrutiny? Did the founding generation view property rights as "absolute"? Only in a fairy-tale version of history. There was still such a thing as eminent domain, there were still regulations of various sorts as to the types of businesses that people could operate on their property, and under what conditions, and in fact, many old colonial towns, especially in New England, had rules regarding whom you could and could not put up in your own home (in order to keep undesirables from moving into town). I want to believe in something absolute, too, but we have to face reality.