Ok, I have a fundamental question... which is more important: Property Rights or the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties?
I am having a big debate with a friend over the idea of Businesses being able to suspend the 2nd Amendment for employees. My argument is that if a landowner can suspend one part of the Bill of Rights, what is to stop them from throwing the whole thing out and strip searching employees.
Before I get the knee jerk reaction of "well they can just quit and work someplace else", I would like to give the following example:
What if a very very rich man bought ALL of the land? Does that mean no more Civil Liberties for anyone? This may seem unrealistic, but given that the government has set the precedent for seizing property under eminent Domain, does it not stand to reason that the Gov could seize all land, and suspend the Bill of rights under the guise of "Property Rights"?
I gave the following example:
"Property Rights were very strongly enforced during feudalism. The King owned ALL the land, rented it to Vassals( knights) in exchange for military service and serfs/peasants could either work the fields or starve. The King/ Lord even owned the deer in the woods, and starving peasants would be punished severely for killing a deer. I am advocating a Constitutional approach that guarantees BASIC human rights (like the Bill of Rights) over the rights of a landowner."
Dont get me wrong, I am a huge advocate of private property. But where do we draw the line? Is my fear of feudalism irrational?
I know there are many people who understand property rights, economics, and civil liberties etc much better than I do on here, so I am interested in any insights you might have on this topic.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us