Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

[Rogue 9]

Again: The Federalist Papers make reference to that right. As they are documents originating in the United States and are concerned with its government, referring to them is not a red herring.

The context and exact quotes would be lovely. You're making an assertion; isn't it usually customary to back those up?

Even still, there's limited protections of a right to property, I'll concede. The freedom from undue seizure is a clearly deliniated and ennumerated right, as opposed to documents which talk about the United States and it's government. The same could be said of a textbook today: It's made in the united states and talk about it's government. Unlike the textbook or the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and Declaration are the law of the land. Perhaps it'd be sensible to discuss them then.

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence has precisely the force of law of the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, or my term paper from last semester; that is to say, zero. It is of vast historical importance, but it is not a legal document. If you tried to cite it in any court, you would be laughed out.

[SirNitram]

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence has precisely the force of law of the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, or my term paper from last semester; that is to say, zero. It is of vast historical importance, but it is not a legal document. If you tried to cite it in any court, you would be laughed out.

Damage to my argument: Zip, zilch, zero. The Constitution still guarantees no right to property beyond undue seizure, and even that has generally been defined as to do with legal proceedings. Looks like you just tore your own objection that we should take the Federalist Papers as a source a new one, Rogue.

[Rogue 9]

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence has precisely the force of law of the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, or my term paper from last semester; that is to say, zero. It is of vast historical importance, but it is not a legal document. If you tried to cite it in any court, you would be laughed out.

Damage to my argument: Zip, zilch, zero. The Constitution still guarantees no right to property beyond undue seizure, and even that has generally been defined as to do with legal proceedings. Looks like you just tore your own objection that we should take the Federalist Papers as a source a new one, Rogue.

Nope. You were citing the Declaration, so I went with a source of equal legal force and greater insight into the workings of the Constitution. If you're prepared to throw out the Federalist Papers on those grounds, then you are also throwing out your source for the rights of life and liberty, as these are similarly not enumerated in the Constitution.

[SirNitram]

Nope. You were citing the Declaration, so I went with a source of equal legal force and greater insight into the workings of the Constitution. If you're prepared to throw out the Federalist Papers on those grounds, then you are also throwing out your source for the rights of life and liberty, as these are similarly not enumerated in the Constitution.

And this does what to the conclusion the right to property does not exist as the anarcho-capitalists demand it must? That's right, jack and shit.

I can only assume that's what this array of red herrings and misdirections has been about, since your first reply demanded that we recignize the right to property from the Federalist Papers. Perhaps you could dedicate your replies to being clear, instead of trying to shuffle half-shells with a pea under one.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence has precisely the force of law of the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, or my term paper from last semester; that is to say, zero. It is of vast historical importance, but it is not a legal document. If you tried to cite it in any court, you would be laughed out.

Damage to my argument: Zip, zilch, zero. The Constitution still guarantees no right to property beyond undue seizure, and even that has generally been defined as to do with legal proceedings. Looks like you just tore your own objection that we should take the Federalist Papers as a source a new one, Rogue.

The founding fathers still beleived a right to property existed. And it seems you forgot the ninth amendment which basically says "even if we didnt list something here, doesnt mean you dont have it" because the founding faqthers beleived in and mentioned a right to property and talked about it in their writings, and because we tend to think that we have a right to property, that measn we do. Under the 9th amendment.

And THAT will probably hold up in court.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Then there is amendment five

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

EMphasis mine. Due process, in the context of the constitution ment a legal proceeding, such as a lwsuit, or criminal trial. Now, the power to tax is expressely given to congress in the constitution (and is frankly, necessary). However, it is expressed that other than that, people have a right to property. Now, the eminent domain clause has an interesting implication.

If private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation, what is just compensation? SHould the person recieve some sort of benefit from this siezure? If it is in the form of a tax, should the person get somthing out of it? What I am getting at here is basically a case for things like public schools and libraries (which I certainly support) being allowed, constitutionally speaking at the federal level.

[Comrade Tortoise]

WHat I am getting to also above is that that particular section of the clause rips apart the Kelo decision. Not only because it takes provate property and gives it to non-public uses, but because the compensation is not just. Practically regardless of how much they are forcably paid for their property

[Rogue 9]

Nope. You were citing the Declaration, so I went with a source of equal legal force and greater insight into the workings of the Constitution. If you're prepared to throw out the Federalist Papers on those grounds, then you are also throwing out your source for the rights of life and liberty, as these are similarly not enumerated in the Constitution.

And this does what to the conclusion the right to property does not exist as the anarcho-capitalists demand it must? That's right, jack and shit.

I can only assume that's what this array of red herrings and misdirections has been about, since your first reply demanded that we recignize the right to property from the Federalist Papers. Perhaps you could dedicate your replies to being clear, instead of trying to shuffle half-shells with a pea under one.

What I'm saying is that there is clearly a right to property conceived by the writers of the Constitution, as the Federalist Papers, written in support of the Constitution's ratification, make mention of it. (Note on your earlier demand: I quoted Federalist 10 in my first post, so I don't know where you thought you were going asking for a quote.)

Also, I object to the insinuation that the belief in the right to property is limited to anarcho-capitalists; I am hardly a Libertarian and I still believe that I have a right to my property. This issue is not black and white. The right to property is the basis of most of the legal system; if there was no such right underlying our laws, would burglary be a crime?

[SirNitram]

Also, I object to the insinuation that the belief in the right to property is limited to anarcho-capitalists; I am hardly a Libertarian and I still believe that I have a right to my property. This issue is not black and white. The right to property is the basis of most of the legal system; if there was no such right underlying our laws, would burglary be a crime?

I object to stupid posts. The replies since my last qualify. First we have Ben repeating a tired old no-limits fallacy that I already have explained to him; not that explaining does anything this thread.

This certainly does. Let's review basic literacy.

And this does what to the conclusion the right to property does not exist as the anarcho-capitalists demand it must?

Now, I suppose if someone wanted to be dogmatically hardheaded, they could claim this could only be interperated as 'The Anarcho-Capitalists want it, no one else.' Of course, the person doing so would have to be a dumbass. Why? Because I already cited the following:

The Constitution still guarantees no right to property beyond undue seizure, and even that has generally been defined as to do with legal proceedings.

...Which shows that such a right is clearly deliniated in the Constitution, that I recignize it, et cetera. So this is nothing but a braindead attempt to strawman through to something not completely unakin to victory.

[Rogue 9]

Uh huh.

While a right to property is a nice idea, it should be remembered that no where is it guaranteed and ennumerated. It's existance is entirely conceptual, and that concept is free to be challenged.

Am I to understand, then, that you weren't actually challenging the idea of the right to property when you made that statement?