My answer:
Let me start by stating unequivocally that I am not a conservative. I speak only for myself.
As to the question, it’s true that one of the government’s essential roles is to protect property. That is made crystal clear in the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as throughout the Federalist Papers. But that protection extends only to human predators, be they the government, domestic criminals, or foreign enemies. Natural processes, like sea level rise, are outside the scope of government. And, yes, climate change and sea level rise, even if partially linked to human activities, is a natural process. Man is part of nature, and like all life forms, man has a particular mode of survival, which is to apply his mind and labor to altering, re-shaping, and improving the natural conditions of nature to his own benefit. But natural processes are not human predators, and thus don’t fall under the essential government role to protect anyone’s property.
Of course, the U.S. government can and does tax its citizens to build seawalls, dikes, sand dunes, and the like to protect coastal properties from the seas. We can argue whether or not the government should be doing it. But, to my understanding, that is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution.
Elsewhere, Dennis Manning Answered, in part:
The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the basics of essential roles…to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, promote general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for us and future generations. Defense of the nation is not the same as protecting property. That is not the government’s role.
My reply:
I generally agree with everything beyond the first paragraph, which is completely erroneous in its conclusion—”protecting property . . . is not the government’s role.”
What is Justice, if not to secure rights to persons and property? What, exactly, does “the blessings of liberty” mean, if not the right of property, without which no other rights, including the right to life, are possible? If you’ve ever read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution’s definitive resource, you would know that the protection of property rights is a primary goal of the government. E.G. Federalist 54: “Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.” John Locke, the Founders’ most cited Enlightenment philosopher and the originator of the concept of unalienable individual rights, understood property rights to be inextricably linked to man’s rights. Man, Locke argued, has a fundamental natural right to his own person, and by logical extension to the product of his own labor, and that the government’s job is to secure those Natural Rights to Property, along with Life and Liberty, through its laws.
As to the Constitution:
The 5th Amendment states “. . . No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 14th Amendment states “. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
And what exactly does “the common defense” (“defense of the nation”) mean, if not protecting the rights of its citizens, including their private property?
Related Reading:
The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay
The Primacy of Property Rights and the American Founding -- David Upham for FEE
Property Rights and the Constitution -- Cato Handbook for Policymakers
No comments:
Post a Comment