|
|
|
Need a Term Paper for College?
Our very best writers will produce any essay or term paper you are looking for! We offer reasonable prices and deliver top quality papers on virtually any topic. Our service is available 24/7. Be sure that we are reliable and consistent.
Order your custom term paper for only $12.95 a page!
The Seizure Of Trump's Jet
The Seizure of Trump's Jet
The question has been presented: Would it be right for a government to impound and sell one of Donald Trump's many Learjets in order to pay for a life saving cancer treatment? A restatement of this question may be : Would it be right for the government to seize the property of any man in order to benefit the society at large? The answer to this question is not a simple one. The inquiry immediately brings to light several layered questions concerning the matter. One might look first into the natural rights of man. What rights does man have according to nature? Secondly, one must consider the rights of a man as part of a society or one who has entered into a social contract. The third aspect up for observation is the code of the particular society of which that man is a part, in this case the United States of America. Each of these views compounded might yield an accurate picture on whether or not an action of the sort, seizure of private property for the public good, would be right, morals not taken into account. However, with morals taken into consideration, the complexity of attaining an answer may compound with every moral theory.
Several people have attempted to answer the above questions among them Rousseau, the writers of French Revolutionary documents, the authors of the United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and Hume in the context of morality. All persons seem to agree that man is born with some semblance of natural rights though they disagree on exactly what these rights are and their relevance. They also see the need for society and social contracts, yet they argue the point on exactly what should be included in such contracts and their conditions. Hume writes as to whether such things are moral.
The United States Declaration of Independence, The Social Contract and Discourse on the origin of Inequality of Rousseau, and the Rousseau influenced French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen all seem to agree that man is born with certain faculties. However, the agreement stops with that assertion. The Declaration of Independence states, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen similarly states, Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their right. The two documents assert that man is not born only as a free being, but as equal to all other men. In respect of this freedom and equality, there are rights that must naturally be given to man. Rousseau denies such claims. He agrees that man is born free, but he is not necessarily born equal to all others. Rousseau writes in the beginning of his Discourse, I conceive of two kinds of inequality in the human species: one which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature and consists in the difference of age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of mind or soul(Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, p37-38). The statement implies that men are in fact not created equally, so should they be allowed the same natural rights? According to Rousseauean thought, this question is almost negligent. Man in the state of nature operates on the sole purpose of trying to survive. He is unconcerned with others, not in the sense that he is cruel, but in that he has limited contact as he in not a member of a society. The concept of rights as man knows them now is not natural, but a convention of society.
Rousseau's exploration of property rights further establishes such rights as products of society. Man began possessing only his labor , according to Rousseau. Through this he came to claim land as his own, It is labor alone that, in giving the cultivator a right to the product of the soil he has tilled, consequently gives him this right, at least until the harvest, and thus from year to year. With this continuing possession uninterrupted, it is easily transferred into property (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, p67). However, property rights were not in existence. Every man was subject to having what he claimed as his own taken at any moment by someone seeking revenge or any man who could overtake him. It was for this reason that landowners established society with laws to benefit themselves and secure their property.
The question arises: What rights does man have as a member of society, and what rights does he forfeit to government in exchange for protection? According to Rousseau, as well as the authors of The Constitution of the United States and the Preface to the Constitution of 1793, society is formed for a certain set of reasons. Society is, for Rousseau, ...a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before (The Social Contract, p148). The French and American documents reiterate the sentiments of Rousseau saying that society should ensure such things as justice, tranquillity, property, and defense. Once again, the French and American revolutionary writings begin to differ from the ideas of Rousseau. He holds that upon becoming a part of a society one enters into a social contract. On agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract, man must give up some things in order to gain others. While the other authors hold that society must secure all of their natural liberties , Rousseau believes man must give up some of his liberties, although ideally one would not have to take such action. A man is still allowed to hold his own thoughts and ideas about matters, however, he cannot let his private interests infringe on the interests of society as a whole, or the general will. In effect, one must become subject to a sort of oppression when becoming a part of society. He inevitably leaves himself open to be ruled by others besides himself solely. Rousseau holds that true equality can be established, as well, through a social contract. The idea of so called natural equality is not completely thrown out, but replaced. Rousseau writes, It is instead of destroying natural equality, the fundamental compact, on the contrary, substitutes a moral and legitimate equality to whatever physical inequality nature may have been able to impose upon men, and that, however, unequal in force or intelligence they may be, men all become equal by convention and by right (The Social Contract, p153).
Property rights, although secured by the social contract of Rousseau, are also subject to the give and take established upon becoming part of society. He writes, Each member of the community gives himself to it, himself and all his forces, including all the goods in his possession (The Social Contract, P151). He does clarify the statement to say that this does not mean that the property of a private individual changes hands. It does signify, though, that the state is master of the goods, in that it gives the individual his rights to have that property as his own in the first place. The man does not truly have the right to what he claims as his own, without the power of the state and its laws to back his claim. Rousseau further discusses property rights, stating, Every man by nature has a right to everything he needs; however, the positive act whereby he becomes proprietor of some goods excludes him from all the rest (The Social Contract, p151). The quote basically says that a man has a right to ownership of things that he needs, as long as he does not take up excessive property so as to disallow others from attaining property sufficient for subsistence.
Rousseau specifically speaks of the right of government to seize private property for public good. He says, We grant that each person alienates, by the social compact, only that portion of...his goods...whose use is of consequence to the community; but we also must grant that only the sovereign is the judge of what is of consequence (The Social Contract, p157). If something is needed for the public good, a person must give it up readily, as part of the social contract. This holds true as long as the sovereign does not ask for things arbitrarily, but for a specific use.
The Constitution of the United States gives specific laws as to seizure of property in the Bill of Rights. Article IV states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This statement seems to be in line with that of Rousseau, that property can not be seized without just cause. However, is public utility just cause? A special case arises with the subject of taxes. Article XVI of the Bill of Rights asserts, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Taxes serve the public good in that they provide for the general welfare. If seizure of property in the form of money for public utility is justified, is the taking of non-monetary property fair?
Hume ventures into the realm of morality, as it concerns such actions in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. One may come up with two opposite answers in light of Hume's arguments. He asserts that an act or an attribute is virtuous if it has public utility. Hume writes, ...the rules of equity and justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition, in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that UTILITY, which results to the public from their strict and regular observance (Enquiry, p23). Seizing private property for public good in this sense is moral, because it serves public utility. On the other hand, seizure of a rich man's property to give to those of lesser fortune lends itself to an effort to reach some sort of equality. Hume is very much against such actions stating, Perfect equality of possessions, destroying all subordination, weakens extremely the authority of magistracy, and must reduce all power nearly to a level, as well as property (Enquiry, p28). From this point of view, such actions would be wrong.
Under natural law a person's property may be taken at any time, so he enters into a society and a social contract. As part of the social contract he makes his goods and services available to the society in return for the benefits of being a member of the society. This view is also reiterated in The Constitution of the United States, of which Donald Trump is a citizen. Probable cause is given to take some of his excessive property. This action is also supported by Hume, assuming that Trump was not singled out because he is rich. Returning to the specific question at hand, is it right for a government to seize a man's, Donald Trump's, private property to serve the public good, the answer is YES, according to natural right, societal right, United States law, and Hume's morals.
Word Count: 1938
|
|
|
Copyright 1999-2004 Wow Essays, All Rights
Reserved
Design by Dream Net Studio
|
|
