From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Property rights and the constitution
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:50:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.002818.18084@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <93008.162248SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>What property "right" do you want the constitution to uphold? The
>>constitution already prevents state goons breaking down our doors
>>or searching us on the street without good evidence of a crime.
>>What more security do you want?
>
>A carefully worded right to property should be in the constitution,
>because individuals should not have to rely on legislatures to
>define and protect property, but individuals should be able to
>advocate for property through the courts, just as they are able
>for other rights such as equality rights or freedom of expression.


I agree. I don't want my property (which is just an extension of my liberty)
restricted at the whim of changing governments.
>
>How it is worded is crucially important, since as I have argued,
>property has to be put into the proper context in relation to liberty,
>but since I am not a constitutional lawyer, I cannot exactly recite
>appropriate constitutional language that strikes what I would consider
>the correct context and balance.  The context of the right to property
>should be as I have been discussing it.  The legislatures can make
>mistakes about property, advocacy through the courts should be allowed
>to attempt to point out the mistakes of legislatures.
>
>However, I don't want the constitutional right to property so absolutist
>that it prevents governments from acting at all, taxing at all, or
>making things like zoning, or environmental legislation impossible.

Why? Is this just an acknowledgement of the compromise (ie partial 
betrayal of principles) needed to get other people to go along?

I would prefer that the logical arguments and consistency of the constitution
is as air tight as possible, and not subject to ad hoc qualifiers and
tacked on if's and but's.

Let me expand:
The current constitution recognizes collective rights (one of the few 
constitutions that does, I think), which means giving a group of people
rights at the expense of an individual. This was supposedly put in to
'protect' minorities and the like, but it is logically inconsistent!
Why? Protect individual liberties exclusively. A collective group
of people is comprised of individuals. All individuals are preotected,
thereofore the members of groups are protected as well. The converse
is *****NOT**** true: protect collective entities. It does not follow
that individuals are necessarily protected. Since adding in verbiage
for collective rights doesn't gain anything in terms of protecting
anyone, it is useless, and harmful.

I want to know whether any restrictions you want to put on property
rights are just ad hoc provisions to gaurantee some "obviously desirable"
objectives, or whether they follow consistently from other basic
assuptions. The fewer rules in any system, the better. We need to
distill the essence of what is needed to run society, not just toss
in a laundry list of wants. Those wants may be nice, but if they derive
from simpler principles, then only the simpler principles are needed.
Consider physics: I handful of equations describe 95% of all phenomena
in the universe (a few loose ends in really strange conditions, but for
the most part we rarely observe these). So as long as we entrench the
fundamentals in the consitution, no other qualifiers or restricitions
are needed. Everything should derive from these principles, and the
principles must not contradict, otherwise your entire system is bogus.

The constitution entrenches certain principles, and then every law or
action can be tested by it. We have many laws which would never stand
up to the mess of contradictions and lack of real principles in our
current constitution. I say that because the constitution empowers the
government to make laws that are supposedly for the good of 'society';
ie just more collective nonsense, with no respect for individuals.
And that's why there isn't respect for property, why laws against
victimless crimes are allowed to exist on the books, why unions
are allowed to force people to join against their will, why governments
arbitrarily tax, with no regard to services used, and why governments
interfere with my RIGHT to enter contracts with others for trade
(which leads to inter-provincial trade barriers, government sanctioned
monopoly industries etc).

SO please don't suggest things about property rights if they are not
going to stand up to logical consistency. Start with the basics, and 
everything else follows.


>
>Gerald


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics