Excluding the rich, who pass down their property and wealth from generation to generation, the vast majority of us works hard to own property someday. Part of the American dream is, indeed, buying a house for the family. So, if owning property—in any form—is almost everyone’s objective in society, it is safe to assume, as Radin’s theory suggests, that there is a correlation between personhood and property. Following this logic, wouldn’t individuals want strong laws that protect what they have worked for their whole lives? In order to have a fruitful discussion, we must first establish that defining and enforcing strong private property rights is essential to maintain a functional democracy and a Pareto efficient economy. Marxist theory argues
…show more content…
In his research, Blumenthal presents a study by Benjamin Barros that claims that factors such as the ‘zone of privacy, freedom, and autonomy’ are portable and can transfer with an individual or family that relocates, even involuntarily” (5). What Barros believes is more psychologically traumatic is the forced separation from “existing social relationships” (5).
Blumenthal recognizes that a classic debate in the context of eminent domain is whether the constitutional right of receiving just compensation should consider “sentimental attachment to one 's home, either on some sliding scale keyed to the length of one 's residence, or a flat amount over and above fair market value, etc. (6). This is, should just compensation be consistent with the emotional connection that individuals have with their property? The problem with including the sentimental value in the compensation for expropriation is, of course, that there is no scientific way to measure …show more content…
Macaulay believes that “universal suffrage is incompatible with [private] property, and … consequently incompatible with civilization” (260). His reasoning is that “if it be admitted that on the institution of property the well-being of society depends, it follows surely that it would be madness to give supreme power in the State to a [working] class which would not be likely to respect that institution” (258). In other words, he believes that granting universal suffrage to uneducated working-class men who were “deceived” to sign the People’s Chartist petition, would be an atrocity and the end of England’s prosperity. Macaulay goes on, arguing that “our working-man has not received such an education as enables him to understand that the utmost distress that he has ever known is prosperity, when compared with the distress which he would have to endure if there were a single month of general anarchy and plunder”
In his research, Blumenthal presents a study by Benjamin Barros that claims that factors such as the ‘zone of privacy, freedom, and autonomy’ are portable and can transfer with an individual or family that relocates, even involuntarily” (5). What Barros believes is more psychologically traumatic is the forced separation from “existing social relationships” (5).
Blumenthal recognizes that a classic debate in the context of eminent domain is whether the constitutional right of receiving just compensation should consider “sentimental attachment to one 's home, either on some sliding scale keyed to the length of one 's residence, or a flat amount over and above fair market value, etc. (6). This is, should just compensation be consistent with the emotional connection that individuals have with their property? The problem with including the sentimental value in the compensation for expropriation is, of course, that there is no scientific way to measure …show more content…
Macaulay believes that “universal suffrage is incompatible with [private] property, and … consequently incompatible with civilization” (260). His reasoning is that “if it be admitted that on the institution of property the well-being of society depends, it follows surely that it would be madness to give supreme power in the State to a [working] class which would not be likely to respect that institution” (258). In other words, he believes that granting universal suffrage to uneducated working-class men who were “deceived” to sign the People’s Chartist petition, would be an atrocity and the end of England’s prosperity. Macaulay goes on, arguing that “our working-man has not received such an education as enables him to understand that the utmost distress that he has ever known is prosperity, when compared with the distress which he would have to endure if there were a single month of general anarchy and plunder”