Property Rights, Sotomayor, and The Principled Individual
Property rights are extremely important to the individual. The U.S. government, though, in many instances, negates those rights in the name of social engineering or some such other blather, which brings us to the matter of Sonia Sotomayor.
More scholarly legal minds than my own are investigating Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. Ilya Somin, posting at The Volokh Conspiracy being one of those scholarly legal minds, has posted some thoughts on Sotomayor in a post titled What the Didden Case Tells Us About Sotomayor’s Attitude Towards Property Rights, and what Somin informs us of in regards to Sotomayor is not good.
Which brings us to the individual, and a thought expressed by Billy Beck in a post regarding the 2nd amendment, which enunciates a more principled reason for property rights.
I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased—the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts”—my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them. I own firearms because I have a right to private property. That is the First Thing.
Link to Somin piece via Transterrestrial Musings.
“Property rights are extremely important to the individual.”
Property rights *are* the individual.
Without property rights, there can be no individual, only a collective.Posted by Matt on 06/19 at 06:26 PM