berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/01/70)
> In article <1724@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > >Imagine the following. The Supreme Court actually defines property as > >the fundamental right. Can you elaborate, what laws would be deleted? > >Would any taxes (income, property, sales, per capita) remain legal? > >Zoning regulations? Eminent domain? > >... > >Piotr Berman > > There are two modifications in interpretation which, if taken > together, would do an awful lot of good. They are (a) the "general > welfare" clause, which is part of the taxing power (Article I, Section > 8, para. 1), is currently interpreted to mean that taxes may be used > to do anything which does anybody any good. This could be > reinterpreted to mean, that no taxes could be levied except to do > something which benefitted EVERYBODY; ie, special interests need not > apply. (b) Economic due process: in Amendment 5, "No person shall ... > be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" > Interpret this to mean that a law which restricts someone's use of > something he owns, is depriving him of some of its value, and that the > need for such a law must be considerably more compelling before it > is allowed. > > The interesting thing to note is that BOTH these interpretations I > advocate were once held by the Supreme Court. (a) was soon swept > away by a confluence of powerful political and commercial special > interests in the early 1800's; (b) held up until the 1930's and > the New Deal. > > --JoSH Two remarks. There are three interpretations of benefitting EVERYBODY. A narrow one: if one person claims that something is not benefiting him, then this thing is not benefiting everybody. A broad one: if one one show direct or INDIRECT benefits for everybody. Yet broader: if one can show direct, indirect and POTENTIAL benefits for everybody. I can personally leave with the third interpretation, JoSH prefers presumably something between first and the second. Secondly, the due process of law is also subject of interpretation.
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (08/26/85)
Charley Wingate has asked what would stop political intervention in the economy in Libertaria. No question, this is a toughie. The best, and admittedly imperfect, solution I can think of is a constitutional one. Currently, what protects civil liberties from infringement, and what protects the rights of the minority from the majority is the existence of a constitution and a supreme court sworn to uphold it. It has done a fair to good job of curbing governmental power in at least some areas of our lives. To limit the power of government in the economy, I'd suggest a constitutional amendment outlining property rights. The real upsetting thing is that modification of the Constitution is hardly necessary (just as well, since it isn't politically feasible at this point in time). All that is necessary is to have the Supreme Court define a right to property as a "fundamental right". Once the S.C. has articulated a right as fundamental, it becomes very difficult for governments to muck with it. Obviously this mechanism is not an easy one, and is not without problems. After all, property rights are often difficult to define. But it's a starting point, and the existence and defense of other "fundamental rights" in the U.S. leads me to think that it would work. --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/28/85)
> Charley Wingate has asked what would stop political intervention in the > economy in Libertaria. No question, this is a toughie. The best, and > admittedly imperfect, solution I can think of is a constitutional one. > Currently, what protects civil liberties from infringement, and what > protects the rights of the minority from the majority is the existence > of a constitution and a supreme court sworn to uphold it. It has done > a fair to good job of curbing governmental power in at least some areas > of our lives. To limit the power of government in the economy, I'd > suggest a constitutional amendment outlining property rights. > > The real upsetting thing is that modification of the Constitution is > hardly necessary (just as well, since it isn't politically feasible > at this point in time). All that is necessary is to have the Supreme > Court define a right to property as a "fundamental right". Once the > S.C. has articulated a right as fundamental, it becomes very difficult > for governments to muck with it. > > Obviously this mechanism is not an easy one, and is not without problems. > After all, property rights are often difficult to define. But it's > a starting point, and the existence and defense of other "fundamental > rights" in the U.S. leads me to think that it would work. > > --Barry > -- > Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley Imagine the following. The Supreme Court actually defines property as the fundamental right. Can you elaborate, what laws would be deleted? Would any taxes (income, property, sales, per capita) remain legal? Zoning regulations? Eminent domain? What about land redistributed via eminent domain? Should it be returned? If yes, what would happen to the existing highways, pipelines etc.? I would appreciate your follow up, Barry. Of course, my intention is to voice some "statist" objections. But if your plan is good, then I think you do not be afraid to much. Piotr Berman
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (08/29/85)
> of our lives. To limit the power of government in the economy, I'd > suggest a constitutional amendment outlining property rights. > > After all, property rights are often difficult to define. But it's > a starting point, and the existence and defense of other "fundamental > rights" in the U.S. leads me to think that it would work. > Hmmm, I guess I don't see what you would achieve this way. You already have some measure of protection of your property (due process, etc.). The problem I see is that "property" is not so easy to define. In this post-environmental action society, courts now recognize a species of "property" in one's right to breath clean air, for instance. If your property consists of a factory up the road which pumps dirt into the air, and I want to have you closed as a common-law nuisance, our various "property" rights are in conflict. This is the sort of market-failure phenomenon that modern zoning and land-use law is founded on. Whatever wonders of progress libertaria offers, I think I'd still like to see stiff land-use regs enforced, even though they may seem to burden those precious rights to "property". Zoning is still cheaper (or more efficient, if you will), than litigation for nuisance abatement. --Joel Gilman @Motorola/Computer X, Inc., Seattle
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/29/85)
In article <1724@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >Imagine the following. The Supreme Court actually defines property as >the fundamental right. Can you elaborate, what laws would be deleted? >Would any taxes (income, property, sales, per capita) remain legal? >Zoning regulations? Eminent domain? >... >Piotr Berman There are two modifications in interpretation which, if taken together, would do an awful lot of good. They are (a) the "general welfare" clause, which is part of the taxing power (Article I, Section 8, para. 1), is currently interpreted to mean that taxes may be used to do anything which does anybody any good. This could be reinterpreted to mean, that no taxes could be levied except to do something which benefitted EVERYBODY; ie, special interests need not apply. (b) Economic due process: in Amendment 5, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" Interpret this to mean that a law which restricts someone's use of something he owns, is depriving him of some of its value, and that the need for such a law must be considerably more compelling before it is allowed. The interesting thing to note is that BOTH these interpretations I advocate were once held by the Supreme Court. (a) was soon swept away by a confluence of powerful political and commercial special interests in the early 1800's; (b) held up until the 1930's and the New Deal. --JoSH
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (08/31/85)
> What about land redistributed via eminent domain? Should it be returned? > If yes, what would happen to the existing highways, pipelines etc.? > I would appreciate your follow up, Barry. Of course, my intention > is to voice some "statist" objections. But if your plan is good, then > I think you do not be afraid to much. Yeah, it should be returned. Most of us should go back to where we came from. The folks who were here first (the natives, remember them?) can try and pick up where they left off 300 years ago. Libertarians can only discuss an abstract society because there ain't no way its going to work right here and now. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)