Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 Dec '13 19:45
    Property. This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

    In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

    He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

    He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

    He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

    Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

    More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

    A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

    If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

    - Right Wing Extremist, March 29, 1792
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    18 Dec '13 20:15
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Property. This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. ...[text shortened]... emselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

    - Right Wing Extremist, March 29, 1792
    He was talking about personal property not private property.
  3. 18 Dec '13 20:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    He was talking about personal property not private property.
    So we should all have the right to barge into your home an take whatever we want?

    We all believe in private property, only, people like you would like to reduce that property as much as possible without a full blown revolution taking place.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    18 Dec '13 20:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    So we should all have the right to barge into your home an take whatever we want?

    We all believe in private property, only, people like you would like to reduce that property as much as possible without a full blown revolution taking place.
    You need to read up on private and personal property. A persons home and possessions are personal property.

    I don't own my home so its not my private property.
  5. 18 Dec '13 20:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    You need to read up on private and personal property. A persons home and possessions are personal property.

    I don't own my home so its not my private property.
    So could I own personal property the size of Texas?
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    18 Dec '13 20:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    So could I own personal property the size of Texas?
    No because you cannot use all of Texas and it would deny others the like advantage.
  7. 18 Dec '13 20:40
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    No because you cannot use all of Texas and it would deny others the like advantage.
    Sure I can. I can adopt millions of children around the world and declare it my own personal space. Hell, I could do that with just a handful of children. Who is the judge and jury as to what I need? You?
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    18 Dec '13 20:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    Sure I can. I can adopt millions of children around the world and declare it my own personal space. Hell, I could do that with just a handful of children. Who is the judge and jury as to what I need? You?
    What part of to the exclusion of others do you not understand?
  9. 18 Dec '13 20:56
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What part of to the exclusion of others do you not understand?
    When does exclusion end? For you it ends from me taking what you have or sleeping in your apartment. However, someone else may see it differently. Who is the judge and jury as to who is excluded and when?
  10. 18 Dec '13 20:57
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    No because you cannot use all of Texas and it would deny others the like advantage.
    what the heck.
  11. 18 Dec '13 21:19
    AThousandYoung, are you using all of your bank account right now? I would really like to go grab a bite to eat at McDonald's.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    18 Dec '13 23:17
    http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/01/right-to-own-property.html
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    18 Dec '13 23:43
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Property. This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. ...[text shortened]... emselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

    - Right Wing Extremist, March 29, 1792
    Referring to Madison as a "right wing extremist" is bizarre even if meant in jest.
  14. 19 Dec '13 00:21
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Referring to Madison as a "right wing extremist" is bizarre even if meant in jest.
    The left referring to conservatives as "right wing extremists" (and terrorists) is bizarre even if meant in jest.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Dec '13 00:46
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    The left referring to conservatives as "right wing extremists" (and terrorists) is bizarre even if meant in jest.
    That would depend on which "conservative" you are referring to.