Property rights are not inalienable

Proposer
otfrom
State

Accepted

Vote Score

3

Age

2479 days


@otfrom edited index.md - almost 7 years ago

We believe that individuals should be:

  • Free to act in any manner that does not harm another individual or their property, and does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals.
  • Free to act in any manner that does not harm another individual, and does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals.
  • Enjoy a fundamental right to privacy from the state or their agents.

In short, we wish to ensure government remains open and transparent, whilst individuals retain liberty and privacy.

Elsewhere

Some contributors hang out in #openpolitics on irc.freenode.net. Feel free to drop by for discussion or help contributing!

Some contributors hang out in #openpolitics on irc.freenode.net. Feel free to drop by for discussion or help contributing!

otfrom

@otfrom - almost 7 years ago

I'd rather we didn't have property rights as one of the central principals.

timcowlishaw

@timcowlishaw - almost 7 years ago

Strong agreement with this from me 👍

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - almost 7 years ago

oooohh interesting, and slightly controversial (in my view) as I favour property rights and don't see why anyone else should be able to interfere with my 'stuff' as long as I'm not using that 'stuff' to damage others (ie weapons; bulldozers; polluting cars etc).

Happy to go along with omitting this, but wouldn't wish to start making explicit anti-property pledges. That would be too 'red' for my taste. So on the basis of this as a deletion only it gets a caveated 👍 from me.

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 13 January 2014 13:57, Tim Cowlishaw [email protected] wrote:

Strong agreement with this from me [image: 👍]

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/72#issuecomment-32170941 .

Floppy

@Floppy - almost 7 years ago

Certainly. Any proposal to change existing property rights would need another PR, and most likely a massive argument and probably a fork, so we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. This is just to keep the assumption out of the core principles. 👍