This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

...

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Very interesting read. In a different thread, there was some discussion as to what a right is. In defining "property," Madison, IMO, clearly states what a right is, as it pertains to one's property; "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." That is, if you have a right to something, you have dominion over it and can use it however you please, regardless of what someone else wants the property to be used for. If I have a "right" to an apple, I have the authority to use it as I see fit, no matter what my neighbor thinks. Obviously, I can't infringe on my neighbor's rights in the free exercise of my right to the apple, but my neighbor can not claim a right to the same apple I have a right to. The right to that apple is exclusive to me.

I'm going to have to ponder the meaning of Madison's words, "In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
property rights no longer exist with the possibility that govt can take anyone's property thru forfeiture laws and eminent domain.. while that doesn't happen to everyone, if it happens to you, then you are screwed, plain and simple.. you will need a lotta bucks to fight them with no guarantee you will win .. and by "property", that basically means anything now, could be cash, a business you own, land, a house, or even mortgages..

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I do, however, have a huge issue with the latest examples of civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

But 'property rights' of 2013 are much different from those of the 18th century author in your link.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ve always admired the POV that we really can`t own property(land or otherwise) any more than we own the air we breath or the water we drink.


Those things we own for the time they are in our bodies...before they cycle on.

quote:

Property is liberty.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Property is impossible.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
—RALPH WALDO EMERSON

Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with subscripts attached for maximum clarity.

"Property1 is theft" means that property1, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.

"Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are comingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

"Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (= property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties1 and 3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.

It is not averred, of course, that property3 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians— especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand— is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property? and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I hate to explain this to you, DS. But 'property rights' of 2013 are much different from those of the 18th century author in your link. Granted the individual is well known, he is however not, all knowing. There is no way he could predict with any level of accuracy how property would be handled in a legal and/or ethical fashion. Case in point, it would have been correct to say that last sentence as "...legal and/or moral...." in the 18th century. But we do not live in the 18th century. The means by which we share this knowledge id evident of that!

quote:

If your going to argue whether 'Eminent Domain' applies according to Mr. Madison, then its fair to ask, "would Jesus allow his followers to have firearms"? In both cases, the idea came well after the individual in question was quite dead. While both had many good points to understand life from two well respected vantage points; they are both limited by knowledge of events of their time and past. Mr. Madison would be simply lost on property rights if we time travelled back and got him to 2013.
It has been noted that some locations across the country have used 'Eminent Domain' to do many bad things towards those that lived there. Elected and non-elected officials using the concept to remove rivals or 'undesirable types'. Or simple did not like the way the buildings were designed, constructed or maintained. The law itself is not corrupted, its how it is used. Often the court room judge disallows anything not directly related to the issue at hand. And that becomes another source of suffering by those that lose their homes. The major problem is there are many problems all tied together. It is not a simple matter like most simple folk would like it to be. And that to, is yet another source of suffering.
If you can only look at the issue from one side, your limited. If you can look at it from all sides, that may give you insight to the real problem that is a few layers below the surface. Often, 'Greed' and 'Hatred' are the real reason this law is abused and corrupted so much. An its up to citizens to look pass all the bull droppings to the real questions being asked but not answered. Unfortunately, most people lack both the education and wisdom to achieve such a feat. So the 'bad guys' win; and that undermines the tool of 'Eminent Domain'.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso
How would you respond to this from Robert Anton Wilson?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

How would you respond to this from Robert Anton Wilson?

quote:

Property is liberty.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Property is impossible.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
—RALPH WALDO EMERSON

Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with subscripts attached for maximum clarity.

"Property1 is theft" means that property1, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.

"Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are comingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

"Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (= property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties1 and 3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.

It is not averred, of course, that property3 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians— especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand— is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property? and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.

Do you think his test is a fair one? I find it rather convincing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I think that can be summed up as, one knows what is one's. All else is but falsely claiming. Can a false claim be made true? No, but it can be made real. There is only one thing that has such power. Mao said it best. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I think that can be summed up as, one knows what is one's. All else is but falsely claiming. Can a false claim be made true? No, but it can be made real. There is only one thing that has such power. Mao said it best. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Had Mao never heard of a wallet? There's power in there, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ve always admired the POV that we really can`t own property(land or otherwise) any more than we own the air we breath or the water we drink.


Those things we own for the time they are in our bodies...before they cycle on.

Makes sense, in a communal sort of way. No wonder "it takes a village."

Based on your statements, no man should ever pay child support. Matter of fact, the idea that it's a woman's choice because it's her body... well. That's absurd by your statements.

What's so funny is that you also state things we own for the time they are in our bodies. Isn't that possession?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I think that can be summed up as, one knows what is one's. All else is but falsely claiming. Can a false claim be made true? No, but it can be made real. There is only one thing that has such power. Mao said it best. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Had Mao never heard of a wallet? There's power in there, too.

Different kinds of power, I would say. The power in a wallet is analogous to the power coming out of an electrical outlet in my house. It only has power as long as there's electricity coming from the power plant. It doesn't generate power, in and of itself.
Money itself only has power as long as people agree that it does, hence the power of the wallet. In contrast, a gun has power whether people agree to it or not.
Then there's also the art of politics and persuasion - using language to manipulate and get people to come around to your way of thinking. That may have been Mao's specialty, a certain level of political savvy to balance things out when one is a bit short on money and guns.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ve always admired the POV that we really can`t own property(land or otherwise) any more than we own the air we breath or the water we drink.


Those things we own for the time they are in our bodies...before they cycle on.

Makes sense, in a communal sort of way. No wonder "it takes a village."

Based on your statements, no man should ever pay child support. Matter of fact, the idea that it's a woman's choice because it's her body... well. That's absurd by your statements.

What's so funny is that you also state things we own for the time they are in our bodies. Isn't that possession?

Meh...those negative things are your projections.....

And most Native American cultures took care of their orphans and there way very little child abandonment....

That seems to be mostly a western cultural phenomenon.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
property rights no longer exist with the possibility that govt can take anyone's property thru forfeiture laws and eminent domain.. while that doesn't happen to everyone, if it happens to you, then you are screwed, plain and simple.. you will need a lotta bucks to fight them with no guarantee you will win .. and by "property", that basically means anything now, could be cash, a business you own, land, a house, or even mortgages..

Did you read the entirety of Madison's writing at that link? The "..." part was meant that there was more between the quoted parts. One part:

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

Eminent Domain does require there to be a public use, and does require the property owner be paid a "fair price" for the property. However, the definition of "fair" is determined the government that is taking the property. Even a Market price isn't necessarily a fair value appraisal, as what the value of property is to the owner may not be accurately represented by the Market. For instance, my car may only be blue book valued at $2000, but if it's the only means I have to get from here to there, it's worth an awful lot more than $2k to me.

Personally, as long as there is a definite public use that is filling a public need, and there is a fair price paid, I don't have a huge issue with eminent domain. I do, however, have a huge issue with the latest examples of civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement.

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf

http://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-grade-detail

Why do you think I am against further government encroachment into even more aspects of daily life?