Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.
Message: 14th Principle--Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right
Your Vote:
Did you know?
You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)
14th
Principle
Life and liberty are secure only so
long as the right to property is secure.
Principle
Life and liberty are secure only so
long as the right to property is secure.
-
-
Under English common law, a most unique significance
was attached to the unalienable right of possessing,
developing, and disposing of property. Land and the products
of the earth were considered a gift of God which were to be
cultivated, beautified, and brought under dominion. As the
Psalmist had written:
"... even the heavens are the Lord's: but the earth
hath he given to the children of men." (Psalm 115:16.)
was attached to the unalienable right of possessing,
developing, and disposing of property. Land and the products
of the earth were considered a gift of God which were to be
cultivated, beautified, and brought under dominion. As the
Psalmist had written:
"... even the heavens are the Lord's: but the earth
hath he given to the children of men." (Psalm 115:16.)
-
Development of the Earth Mostly
by Private Endeavor
by Private Endeavor
-
Then Locke pointed out that man received the
commandment from his Creator to "subdue" the earth and
"have dominion" over it (Genesis 1:28).
But because dominion means control, and control
requires exclusiveness, private rights in property became an
inescapable necessity or an inherent aspect of subduing the
earth and bringing it under dominion.
Then Locke pointed out that man received the
commandment from his Creator to "subdue" the earth and
"have dominion" over it (Genesis 1:28).
But because dominion means control, and control
requires exclusiveness, private rights in property became an
inescapable necessity or an inherent aspect of subduing the
earth and bringing it under dominion.
-
It is obvious that if there were no such thing as
"ownership" in property, which means legally protected
exclusiveness, there would be no subduing or extensive
development of the resources of the earth. Without private
"rights" in developed or improved property, it would be
perfectly lawful for a lazy, covetous neighbor to move in as
soon as the improvements were completed and take
possession of the fruits of his industrious neighbor. And even
the covetous neighbor would not be secure, because someone
stronger than he could take it away from him.
It is obvious that if there were no such thing as
"ownership" in property, which means legally protected
exclusiveness, there would be no subduing or extensive
development of the resources of the earth. Without private
"rights" in developed or improved property, it would be
perfectly lawful for a lazy, covetous neighbor to move in as
soon as the improvements were completed and take
possession of the fruits of his industrious neighbor. And even
the covetous neighbor would not be secure, because someone
stronger than he could take it away from him.
-
Without Property Rights, Four Things Would Occur
-
Note that if property rights did not exist, four things
would occur which would completely frustrate the Creator's
command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it
and bring it under dominion:
1. One experience like the above would tend to
completely destroy the incentive of an industrious
person to develop and improve any more property.
2. The industrious individual would also be deprived of
the fruits of his labor.
3. Marauding bands would even be tempted to go about
the country confiscating by force and violence the
good things which others had frugally and
painstakingly provided.
4. Mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare
subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because
the accumulation of anything would invite attack.
Note that if property rights did not exist, four things
would occur which would completely frustrate the Creator's
command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it
and bring it under dominion:
1. One experience like the above would tend to
completely destroy the incentive of an industrious
person to develop and improve any more property.
2. The industrious individual would also be deprived of
the fruits of his labor.
3. Marauding bands would even be tempted to go about
the country confiscating by force and violence the
good things which others had frugally and
painstakingly provided.
4. Mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare
subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because
the accumulation of anything would invite attack.
-
A Person's Property is a Projection of Life Itself
-
Another interesting point made by Locke is the fact that
all property is an extension of a person's life, energy, and
ingenuity. Therefore, to destroy or confiscate such property
is, in reality, an attack on the essence of life itself.
The person who has worked to cultivate a farm, obtained
food by hunting, carved a beautiful statue, or secured a wage
by his labor, has projected his very being -- the very essence
of his life -- into that labor. This is why Locke maintained
that a threat to that property is a threat to the essence of life
itself.
Another interesting point made by Locke is the fact that
all property is an extension of a person's life, energy, and
ingenuity. Therefore, to destroy or confiscate such property
is, in reality, an attack on the essence of life itself.
The person who has worked to cultivate a farm, obtained
food by hunting, carved a beautiful statue, or secured a wage
by his labor, has projected his very being -- the very essence
of his life -- into that labor. This is why Locke maintained
that a threat to that property is a threat to the essence of life
itself.
-
Property Rights Sacred?
-
It is important to recognize that the common law does
not make property sacred, but only the right which someone
has acquired in that property. Justice George Sutherland of
the U.S. Supreme Court once told the New York State Bar
Association:
It is important to recognize that the common law does
not make property sacred, but only the right which someone
has acquired in that property. Justice George Sutherland of
the U.S. Supreme Court once told the New York State Bar
Association:
-
"It is not the right of property which is protected,
but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights;
but the individual -- the man -- has three great rights,
equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to
his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his
PROPERTY.... The three rights are so bound together as
to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but
deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes
his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from
him the property which is the fruit and badge of his
liberty, is to still leave him a slave." (George Sutherland,
"Principle or Expedient?", Annual Address to the New
York State Bar Association, 21 January 1921, p. 18.)
"It is not the right of property which is protected,
but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights;
but the individual -- the man -- has three great rights,
equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to
his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his
PROPERTY.... The three rights are so bound together as
to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but
deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes
his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from
him the property which is the fruit and badge of his
liberty, is to still leave him a slave." (George Sutherland,
"Principle or Expedient?", Annual Address to the New
York State Bar Association, 21 January 1921, p. 18.)
-
In this same spirit Abraham Lincoln once said:
-
"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable,
is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich
shows that others may become rich and hence is just
encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him
who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let
him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by
example assuring that his own shall be safe from
violence.... I take it that it is best for all to leave each
man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will
get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man
from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
(Quoted in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, May 1955, p.
7.)
"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable,
is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich
shows that others may become rich and hence is just
encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him
who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let
him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by
example assuring that his own shall be safe from
violence.... I take it that it is best for all to leave each
man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will
get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man
from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
(Quoted in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, May 1955, p.
7.)
-
Primary Purpose of Government Is
to Protect Property
to Protect Property
-
The early American colonists had much to say about
property and property rights because it was a critical issue
leading to the Revolutionary War. The effort of the Crown to
take their property through various kinds of taxation without
their consent (either individually or through their
representatives) was denounced as a violation of the English
constitution and English common law. They often quoted
John Locke, who had said:
The early American colonists had much to say about
property and property rights because it was a critical issue
leading to the Revolutionary War. The effort of the Crown to
take their property through various kinds of taxation without
their consent (either individually or through their
representatives) was denounced as a violation of the English
constitution and English common law. They often quoted
John Locke, who had said:
-
"The supreme power cannot take from any man any
part of his property without his own consent. For the
preservation of property being the end of government,
and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily
supposes and requires that the people should have
property, without which they must be supposed to lose
that [property] by entering into society, which was the
end for which they entered into it." (John Locke, Second
Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 57, par.
"The supreme power cannot take from any man any
part of his property without his own consent. For the
preservation of property being the end of government,
and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily
supposes and requires that the people should have
property, without which they must be supposed to lose
that [property] by entering into society, which was the
end for which they entered into it." (John Locke, Second
Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 57, par.
-
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it,
anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE
SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST." (Charles
Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.,
Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1850-1856, 6:9,
280; emphasis added.)
property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it,
anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE
SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST." (Charles
Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.,
Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1850-1856, 6:9,
280; emphasis added.)
-
Should Government Take from the "Haves"
and Give to the "Have Nots"?
and Give to the "Have Nots"?
-
As we have pointed out earlier, one of the worst sins of
government, according to the Founders, was the exercise of
its coercive taxing powers to take property from one group
and give it to another. In our own day, when the government
has imposed a multi-hundred-billion-dollar budget on the
American people with about one half being "transfer
payments" from the tax-paying public to the wards of the
government, the following words of James Madison may
sound strange:
As we have pointed out earlier, one of the worst sins of
government, according to the Founders, was the exercise of
its coercive taxing powers to take property from one group
and give it to another. In our own day, when the government
has imposed a multi-hundred-billion-dollar budget on the
American people with about one half being "transfer
payments" from the tax-paying public to the wards of the
government, the following words of James Madison may
sound strange:
-
"Government is instituted to protect property of
every sort.... This being the end of government, that
alone 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." (Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete
Madison, Harper & Bros., New York, 1953, p. 267.)
"Government is instituted to protect property of
every sort.... This being the end of government, that
alone 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." (Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete
Madison, Harper & Bros., New York, 1953, p. 267.)
-
Redistribution of the Wealth Unconstitutional
In earlier years the American courts held that the
expropriating of property to transfer to other citizens was
unlawful, being completely outside the constitutional power
delegated to the government. It was not until after 1936 (the
Butler case) that the Supreme Court began arbitrarily
distorting the meaning of the "general welfare" clause to
permit the distribution of federal bounties as a
demonstration of "concern" for the poor and the needy.
Before that time, this practice was prohibited. The Supreme
Court had declared:
In earlier years the American courts held that the
expropriating of property to transfer to other citizens was
unlawful, being completely outside the constitutional power
delegated to the government. It was not until after 1936 (the
Butler case) that the Supreme Court began arbitrarily
distorting the meaning of the "general welfare" clause to
permit the distribution of federal bounties as a
demonstration of "concern" for the poor and the needy.
Before that time, this practice was prohibited. The Supreme
Court had declared:
-
"No man would become a member of a community
in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor
and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a
primary object of the social compact.... The legislature,
therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one
citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without
a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the
principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is
incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of
mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social
alliance in every free government; and lastly, IT IS
CONTRARY TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE
CONSTITUTION." (2 Dall 304, 310 [Pa. 1795]; emphasis
added.)
"No man would become a member of a community
in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor
and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a
primary object of the social compact.... The legislature,
therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one
citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without
a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the
principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is
incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of
mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social
alliance in every free government; and lastly, IT IS
CONTRARY TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE
CONSTITUTION." (2 Dall 304, 310 [Pa. 1795]; emphasis
added.)
-
Caring for the Poor Without
Violating Property Rights
Violating Property Rights
-
But, of course, the nagging question still remains. If it
corrupts a society for the government to take care of the poor
by violating the principle of property rights, who will take
care of the poor? The answer of those who built America
seems to be: "Anybody but the federal government."
Americans have never tolerated the suffering and
starvation which have plagued the rest of the world, but until
the present generation help was given almost exclusively by
the private sector or on the community or state level.
President Grover Cleveland vetoed legislation in his day
designed to spend federal taxes for private welfare problems.
He wrote:
But, of course, the nagging question still remains. If it
corrupts a society for the government to take care of the poor
by violating the principle of property rights, who will take
care of the poor? The answer of those who built America
seems to be: "Anybody but the federal government."
Americans have never tolerated the suffering and
starvation which have plagued the rest of the world, but until
the present generation help was given almost exclusively by
the private sector or on the community or state level.
President Grover Cleveland vetoed legislation in his day
designed to spend federal taxes for private welfare problems.
He wrote:
-
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in
the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and
duty of the General Government ought to be extended to
the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner
properly related to the public service or benefit. A
prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of
this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly
resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly
enforced that though the people support the Government
the Government should not support the people.
"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can
always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in
misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately
demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the
expectation of paternal care on the part of the
Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national
character, while it prevents the indulgence among our
people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which
strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." (Why
the President Said No," in Essays on Liberty, 12 vols.,
The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvingtonon-
Hudson, New York, 1952-65, 3:255; emphasis
added.)
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in
the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and
duty of the General Government ought to be extended to
the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner
properly related to the public service or benefit. A
prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of
this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly
resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly
enforced that though the people support the Government
the Government should not support the people.
"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can
always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in
misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately
demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the
expectation of paternal care on the part of the
Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national
character, while it prevents the indulgence among our
people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which
strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." (Why
the President Said No," in Essays on Liberty, 12 vols.,
The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvingtonon-
Hudson, New York, 1952-65, 3:255; emphasis
added.)
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply