Private property as a right

Thank you for your response Private Property as a Right Just to recap last round I was making pretty much two points and I would like to push one a little further. I pointed out the government’s obligation to not take away a citizen’s property. What I am confused about is that con is trying to make some sort of distinction between private property and property. The only other option is public property and the 14th amendment is clearly not referring to that. Con as the instigator did not clearly define the term so I will do so. “Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities” [1]. The founders were trying to prevent government intervention for citizens’ private property. How can they prevent government intervention from something owned by the government? I also pointed out a major misunderstanding I believe con has of how exactly rights work. I plan to elaborate during this round. 5th Amendment specifically guarantees private property I did not do specific research in the first round because as you said I consider private property being a right as a no brainer. After doing short research I found that the 5th amendment specifically refers to private property. Even if con’s proposed distinction between private property and property stands, this evidence demonstrates that private property is a right. “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” [2]. Additionally, con has conceded to my point regarding property being an “acquired” right so I see no reason why at this point the discussion could not end here. Nevertheless, I will move on to address some of my opponents points for the sake of discussion. An “acquired” Right Again, con agrees on the point that property is a required right but still is yet to make the distinction. I already proved private property is explicitly mentioned as a right. But con seems to be unable to apply this logic because con makes claims that demonstrates misunderstanding of this point. Con makes an argument that workers are somehow prevented from their right to property. This is flawed logic. The workers are entered in a consensual bargain with the owner of the property. If con agrees that property is an acquired right, then the numbers he sourced about how many people own property is utterly irrelevant. Once again, an acquired right means that nobody is required to provide the property to an individual all it means is that the government cannot take away a citizen’s property. Con additionally seems to be inconsistent. Con is trying to make a claim that blacks are being prevented from owning private property but is also claiming that it is not a right. If it is not a right it shouldn’t matter per the con position. Con is making an improper conclusion from the data of his source. A disparity in statistics is not always conclusive. There are a ton of statistical barriers and variables. This is in no way evidence of any sort of discrimination particularly with regards to government practices which is really the focus of this debate. Con brings up John Locke and it is clear even from the statements pro brings up that John Locke is clearly referring to private property. Con claims: “First, I'd like to point out again, that these words are not specific enough to indicate that a person is entitled to own property all on their own, and not communally.” I beg to differ con. Con additionally quoted: “Joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property… that excludes the common right of other Men.” This is clearly not referring to public property. I do not see how John Locke can be any clearer. Perhaps I will provide more evidence in the following rounds The rest of con’s argument once again show a misunderstanding of the acquired right piece of the argument. How can the government or anyone deny an acquired right? I thought we agreed that nobody is required to provide property. Even if your points regarding a scarcity of property stand, it doesn’t hold weight for this discussion. See again my arguments about the function of the right. To reiterate it is pretty much that the government cannot take away one’s already acquired right. Con’s misunderstanding of rights Con’s whole premise demonstrates a misunderstanding of rights. I have already proved the constitution explicitly mentions a right to private property. But even if con thinks it does not, that is not how our rights in America work. Rights are not exclusive. The 10th amendment clearly points this out [3]. The constitution does not mention the right to sex, for example, but it is still a right. I do not currently have time to address con’s other points in detail which con correctly points out are off topic. I will just briefly say the role of government is not to implement cosmic justice and ensure that everyone has the same or “fair” outcome. Government’s role is to protect your rights. Your personal success or endeavors are your personal responsibilities. I look forward to your response. Sources: [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://constitution.findlaw.com... [3]: http://constitution.laws.com...