The Vanishing Right to Property

[vulturesrow]

The Vanishing Right to Property

An article posted from the Claremont Institute.

In one of the most famous Federalist papers, Federalist 10, James Madison wrote that the first object of government was the protection of the diversity of the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate. The right to acquire and protect property was considered to be one of the fundamental, inalienable natural rights of mankind, and it is recognized as such in most of the original state constitutions and nearly all of the subsequent state constitutions. Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1776 is fairly typical, recognizing "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Last week, the Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to the fundamental right of property owners to possess and actually use the property for which they had labored in their own pursuit of happiness. Affirming a 9th Circuit ruling by Judge Stephen Reinhardt that upheld a complete ban on new development in the Lake Tahoe basin in California and Nevada that has lasted now more than 20 years, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, held that the initial 3-year moratorium on development was not a categorical taking because it deprived property owners of the use of their property for only a fraction of the property's entire useful life. By that reasoning, any local government can deprive individuals of the right to use their property merely by being smart enough to set a termination date to any development moratorium it imposes for what it deems to be in the public interest. As a result, hundreds of people who purchased property near Lake Tahoe for vacation or retirement homes will forever be barred from using their property as they intended.

Notice this was written in 2002.

[lehighguy]

One of the things Grey said made me wonder alot about the right to property. I've always believed in the teachings of Locke, but I came to realize my own political views violate them.

All taxation is a violation of property rights 9except perhaps natedogs voluntary taxation idea). Even if we agree that the leveling of taxes to provide peace, security, and courts I find there is still one other area that I think we need to raise mandatory taxes for: education. I can't justify this from a public property perspective, I can only justify it from a "public good" perspective. I think it will make for a better society. However, if I start violating property rights for the one thing I think is for the public good, then someone else can make an arguement why we need to violate property rights for the "public good" in order to fund SS, Medicare, Welfare, farm subsidies, etc. I may not believe in them, but they can be justified under the "public good" arguement, the same one used in the supreme court case.

Who should decide what is part of the "public good". Grey suggest elections should. You can make an arguement for anything. You could make an arguement for outright communism. All you would need to do is convince people of it. That's how a democracy works, mob rule. All you have to do is manipulate people enough. And what happens if people decide that they can violate someone's "rights" for the "public good". Our constitution, supreme court, and congress are suppose to protect people's inherent rights. But they haven't in the past. For many years they supported segregation, oppression, and a number of other unsavory acts. Even today the recent supreme court ruling seems to have been condemned by those on the right and the left on this board.

So what are our "rights"? Do we really have any? Or is our system so fragile that it can be manipulated by anyone who can convince a majority that it is for the "public good".

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So what are our "rights"? Do we really have any? Or is our system so fragile that it can be manipulated by anyone who can convince a majority that it is for the "public good".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have rights. You know what they are. They are not granted by the Constitution, they're just listed there. The Constitution is just a contract, signed by a bunch of (to use the parlance of our times) dead white guys. I didn't sign it, did you?

Expression
Self-Defense
Property
Association
Self-Determination

These are the big ones. Every human has these rights. Anyone that says differently is an oppressor, period.

[lehighguy]

I've always agreed to these, but some of my beliefs violate them. For instance, I think using taxation to provide an education to each child is essential, but I have to violate property rights to do so. How am I any better then the supreme court deciding a local government can take someone's house via eminient domain and give it to WalMart?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
They are not granted by the Constitution, they're just listed there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons that Jefferson was against the Bill of Rights. His feeling was that if the BOR was included that future generations would say that these are all the rights where as his push was “if it’s not specifically prohibited – it’s a right – therefore allowed”