Replies

But the right to own and enjoy property has always been an important part of the rights of the people. At the Philadelphia convention that drafted the Constitution, John Rutledge of South Carolina reminded the delegates that "property was certainly the principal object of Society." They did not really need much reminding, because the Framers all believed that respect for an individual's property rights lay at the heart of the social contract. Not only did they build institutional safeguards into the Constitution to protect those rights, but the nation soon added important provisions through the Bill of Rights to buttress that protection. Moreover, the Founders did not intend that these protections extend only to land or discernible assets, but to all the rights inherent in property — real or personal, tangible or intangible. They believed that property was "the guardian of every other right," for without the right to own and use and enjoy one's property free from arbitrary governmental interference, there could be no liberty of any sort.

Oops, sorry - meant to include you.

Interesting yet not necessarily correct. While the Founding Fathers were men of property - and the ownership of property was initially considered a prerequisite to the right to vote - The Bill of Rights was specifically directed towards individual rights, as in the Right to free speech and practice of religion, the Right to bear arms, the Right to assemble, etc..

The whole issue of "wars being fought for property" and other such inanities are immaterial: the issue is really whether smoking should be conducted in public places.

The answer is "no" for the same reason I can't spray toluene or methyl ethyl ketone in public areas - those are potentially lethal carcinogens and no one has the right to inflict that danger on another.

As I said before, nobody is arguing against smoking in your own home - just against smoking in public areas.

Excellent post, thank you for adding it to the discussion.