 |
| Replies |
 Ayesha (main path) |
 Ann |
 John |
 Dee |
| Property Rights |
| Dee
Speaking
|
 You
keep talking about consequences. Let's step back for a minute.We have some very strong laws protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country. Liberals and libertarians often agree in these areas. But when we apply those laws to various cases, do we talk about consequences? Not usually. Our law allows racist literature, anti-Semitic literature, pornography, and a lot more -- even though many people believe that they do harm to some people. We don't say that someone can be prevented from speaking or publishing a book if it looks like the consequences will be undesirable. We don't say that freedom of conscience or religion is permitted as long as the consequences tally up in the right way. You talk as if it is obvious that property rights have to be adjusted to achieve certain consequences -- let's say, to avoid a very unequal distribution of wealth or to reduce poverty. I'm asking you to think of them like free speech rights or the freedom of religion. Isn't property just as important for a free, democratic society as freedom of speech? If the government can take your property, it can destroy you. One of the major judicial trends of the last 75 years has been to relegate property rights to a lower tier than speech rights in our courts and in our constitutional law -- as if they are somehow less important to a free society. I'm asking you to reconsider that shift. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||