AnarchyeL
13-02-2005, 09:08
Several days ago someone (I admit I am too lazy to find out who) posted a question on socialism asking how anyone could support liberty while simultaneously limiting the "right" to property.
I wonder if it sheds any new light on this problem to understand that the American founders distinguished rather sharply between the two? For instance, consider Gouverneur Morris' (of Pennsylvania) comments at the Constitutional Convention:
Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. The savage State was more favorable to liberty than the Civilized; and sufficiently so to life. It was preferable by all men who had not acquired a taste for property; it was only renounced for the sake of property which could only be secured by the restraints of regular Government.
(Obviously, Morris defended property rights -- over freedom. Thus, I certainly do not agree with him... but I find the terms in which the debate was formulated most interesting. He and I do agree, however, that Government is the very basis for the defense of property, which is among the reasons it cannot be considered a "natural right." It does not exist in nature.)
I wonder if it sheds any new light on this problem to understand that the American founders distinguished rather sharply between the two? For instance, consider Gouverneur Morris' (of Pennsylvania) comments at the Constitutional Convention:
Life & liberty were generally said to be of more value, than property. An accurate view of the matter would nevertheless prove that property was the main object of Society. The savage State was more favorable to liberty than the Civilized; and sufficiently so to life. It was preferable by all men who had not acquired a taste for property; it was only renounced for the sake of property which could only be secured by the restraints of regular Government.
(Obviously, Morris defended property rights -- over freedom. Thus, I certainly do not agree with him... but I find the terms in which the debate was formulated most interesting. He and I do agree, however, that Government is the very basis for the defense of property, which is among the reasons it cannot be considered a "natural right." It does not exist in nature.)