Townhall.comby Joseph Phillips
The right to private property was one of the central issues involved in the American Revolution. The colonistsâ€™ cries of â€œtaxation without representationâ€ were but protests of what they saw as an unjust taking of private property.
The Declaration of Independence charges the King of England with engaging in 10 acts of abuse, of which half are offenses against private property. Most significantly, the Declaration lists the pursuit of happiness as one of manâ€™s primary inalienable rights. The founders believed that liberty, happiness, and property were inextricably tied together.
Over the years, the American occupation with private property has not receded. Indeed, the question of private property remains a central part of our national political conversation. The political rhetoric may not always reflect it, but if one scratches the surface of arguments surrounding universal healthcare; entitlements; budgetary deficits; business regulation; cap-and-trade, or even abortion, one will find an argument involving the God-given right to private property.
The founders, of course, did not understand property simply to mean oneâ€™s possessions. Property was understood to include the fruit of oneâ€™s labor; it included a manâ€™s conscienceâ€”the things he believed and thought, and the ideals he held dear. James Madison wrote that individuals have a property, â€œIn their opinions and the free exercise of them.â€ As well as â€œa property of peculiar value in his religious opinions and in the profession and practice dictated by them.â€ In short, â€œas man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.â€
The founders were then of the same mind as John Locke, who wrote in his â€œSecond Treatise on Government:â€ â€œThe great and chief end therefore, of men united into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.â€
Some Americans continue to share the belief that the right to private property is sacrosanct--other Americans, not so much.
In a 2001 radio interview, a young Barack Obama lamented that the Warren Court had not been more radical and had not addressed the redistribution of wealth, which is to say the redistribution of private property. Obama continued to opine that the Constitution was a charter of â€œnegative liberties,â€ which failed to declare, â€œWhat the federal or state government must do on your behalf.â€ The truth is that when read through the lens of the Declaration, the Constitution lays out the manner in which the government will carry out the commission with which government has principally been charged: protecting each citizenâ€™s private property! More: http://townhall.com/columnists/JosephCPhillips/2010/07/05/independence_and_the_right_to_private_property