The single most significant public policy shift away from the “original intent” of the Founders involves the way private property and associated rights are viewed. The Founders viewed private property as the foundation of freedom as well as a means of creating wealth. The benefits, value, and even the meaning of property ownership has shifted over time, and we are moving toward an era of shared resources where fewer people own a greater percentage of wealth and production capital. Intrusive regulations often verging on regulatory takings creates a disincentive of ownership because liabilities often outweigh potential benefits of ownership. Especially during a declared national emergency, the government can persuade, threaten, and then commandeer entire industries. Emphasis on the collective good over the rights of the individual means that private property is perpetually at risk of regulatory and legislative attack. In response, a mutually beneficial détente develops among the legislators, regulators, and top industrialists, all of whom benefit from consolidation of capital into fewer hands. Nowhere is this situation on full display more than in the critical infrastructure sector, where the line between “public” and “private” continues to further blur. This paper will demonstrate that “critical infrastructure” needs to be better defined in order best apply existing property laws.
The paper is available in its entirety at the below:
20211212 NatSecJournal – Property Rights and Original Intent (Newbold)
Comments are closed.