Private property as a right

Thank you to con for instigating the debate. I look forward to some thoughtful discussion. I agree to take on the burden of proof as con has proposed. I do, however, slightly disagree with his point about something being a right. I do generally agree with con’s point about an affirmative statement with regards to burden of proof. However, the burden should be on the government to have a proper reason for something to be prohibited or not a right. It is not on the burden of a citizen to say why something is allowed or why they have a right. Based on my understanding it seems that I am required to fulfill two arguments: Private property is a right and that it ought to be a right. I’ll get right to it. Private Property as a Right I will admit that con is correct, at least with me, when he says that private property being a right seems like a no brainer. I additionally agree with con’s point that many people don’t think about it. I believe that many misunderstand it. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [1] I am sure that con is aware of this and probably has an interesting response that I look forward to hearing. But I believe for now that this settles as evidence for at least the existence of the right to private property. This right is not as much of an insight to the citizen as it is a duty of the government. Note that section 1 of the 14th amendment is written with the context of the government. The Constitution has the precise opposite mindset that con outlined. Whereas con believes that for a right to be established the burden is on the citizen to explain why, the Constitution maintains that rights are pre-existing and for them to be taken away the burden is on the government to say why i.e. just compensation. Property rights, however, are slightly different from the other God given and inalienable rights. John Locke, who had a major influence on the Constitution, points out that this right to property can only be acquired through one’s own personal labor. I believe he phrases it as something along the lines of an “acquired” right. [2] What this distinction essentially means is that the government does not have an obligation to provide property for its citizens. That responsibility lies with the citizens. It does mean that the government has an obligation to not take it away and I will later get into the reasons why this is important. This type of right is not vastly different than other rights such as the right to bear arms. Here, as well, the government is not required to provide its citizens with arms but the government is obligated to never infringe on the right. The Function of the Right One of the primary functions of the constitution was to limit the government’s power and prevent it from becoming tyrannical. Therefore as early as the 2nd amendment it is established that the government cannot take away one’s right to bear arms because this is critical in order to fight if there was such a tyranny. Property rights to a much lower extent accomplishes the same goal along with the rest of the rights mentioned in the constitution. As mentioned before, this prevents the government from taking away somebody’s already acquired property. Otherwise, it would not be so hard for the government to take somebody’s property and use a common justification which is that it is a “compelling government interest.” Here government is instituted to protect individuals’ rights to their own private property, again not to provide it. These points are relevant to claims that people make regarding the fictitious right to “affordable housing." Unfortunately, today the government in many ways is not living up to this responsibility. A prime example of this is rent control. It is true that the government isn’t directly taking away an owner’s private property but they are to a certain degree declaring some ownership over it if they are determining the prices. The government is stepping out of its boundaries previously defined when they are often decreasing the value of an owner’s property without just compensation. As proven, the government’s responsibility is to secure individual property rights, not violate them. Good luck and I look forward to your response. Sources: [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]: https://plato.stanford.edu...