Consider the formula of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not one of these is foundational to our inalienable rights. At the time this was written, the philosophical formula was "life, liberty and property." "Pursuit of happiness" was flowery language to replace property. If you have liberty, you already have the ability to pursue. But life and liberty are not foundational either. Property is.
That's because it was understood that property included your life and liberty. You own your body and the right to do with it what you will. The state assumes you do not own yourself. They have the right to tax you and otherwise regulate you. Control is ownership.
American exceptionalism, something Obama doesn't understand because it never existed prior to America, is the idea that you do own yourself and you lend some of your rights to the government by consent. The problem is consent is not really possible as Randy Barnett points out.
Time often demonstrates who was right in an argument: An enumeration of rights
Locke was wrong. Property is acquired by possession. Chain of title simply provides legal defense. The indians didn't feel that need for legal defense and lost the land to those that did. Before nations existed, all property came to be owned by possession. All wealth comes from the trading of property in a chain of ownership that must at some point have been started by a claim.
We are at a unique crossroad in history. We can establish a precedent that will follow humanity for millennia. The universe is full of unclaimed property that can rightfully, morally and legally be claim if we do it in an orderly and reasonable manner. The settlement charter establishes terms to do just that and opens up the solar system to everybody (not just the 'well heeled.')
No comments:
Post a Comment