Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: How governments might be kept from economic intervention
Message-ID: <1724@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 02:14:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1724
Posted: Wed Aug 28 02:14:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 00:45:42 EDT
References: <9563@ucbvax.ARPA> <1106@umcp-cs.UUCP> <10166@ucbvax.ARPA> <245@pedsgd.UUCP> <10203@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 37

> Charley Wingate has asked what would stop political intervention in the
> economy in Libertaria.  No question, this is a toughie.  The best, and
> admittedly imperfect, solution I can think of is a constitutional one.
> Currently, what protects civil liberties from infringement, and what
> protects the rights of the minority from the majority is the existence
> of a constitution and a supreme court sworn to uphold it.  It has done
> a fair to good job of curbing governmental power in at least some areas
> of our lives.  To limit the power of government in the economy, I'd
> suggest a constitutional amendment outlining property rights.
> 
> The real upsetting thing is that modification of the Constitution is
> hardly necessary (just as well, since it isn't politically feasible
> at this point in time).  All that is necessary is to have the Supreme
> Court define a right to property as a "fundamental right".  Once the
> S.C. has articulated a right as fundamental, it becomes very difficult
> for governments to muck with it.
> 
> Obviously this mechanism is not an easy one, and is not without problems.
> After all, property rights are often difficult to define.  But it's
> a starting point, and the existence and defense of other "fundamental
> rights" in the U.S. leads me to think that it would work.
> 
> --Barry
> -- 
> Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley

Imagine the following.  The Supreme Court actually defines property as
the fundamental right.  Can you elaborate, what laws would be deleted?
Would any taxes (income, property, sales, per capita) remain legal? 
Zoning regulations?  Eminent domain?
What about land redistributed via eminent domain?  Should it be returned?
If yes, what would happen to the existing highways, pipelines etc.?
I would appreciate your follow up, Barry.  Of course, my intention
is to voice some "statist" objections.  But if your plan is good, then
I think you do not be afraid to much.

Piotr Berman