While I think that the logic of the framers was correct in terms of not doing a laundry list of rights, lest anything omitted be dismissed as not a right, I wish the framers had much more emphatically stated that the Constitution was a specific list of powers that bound the Federal government, not a skeleton upon which to build. I’m thinking something akin to language stating that “any powers not granted to the United States in this Constitution may only be granted by a properly-ratified Amendment to the Constitution.” Then again, considering the skill with which the power-hungry have sidestepped the 10th Amendment, I’m not sure in the end what such a clause in the Constitution may have done to prevent the growth of the leviathan.

life of course is a nonissue.

and property, yeah Madison and a couple others probably would’ve quibbled with the idea of sovereign property rights, but…

I hold and will always hold that if they had defined freedom/liberty rigorously in any of the founding documents, decay would’ve taken a lot longer.

Ever been in a room full of leaders? Concensus isn’t exactly something you have to fight off with a stick. These guys don’t stike me as easy to negotiate with.

It seemed obvious to them since it’d alwyas been defined tht way. But it meant FDR got to tell us that ‘freedom from want and fear’ is a part of liberty.

It states what they cant do and why its important.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution’s purpose was not to declare what the citizen’s rights are, the Framers thought that was obvious, even the Anti-Federalists did. As far as they were concerned, you just needed to read Locke, Blackstone, Hutcheson, Lord Kames, Hume, Smith, etc. to know what our rights as men are. The purpose of the Constitution was, and is, to make clear what the government may and may not do.

It does mention them, but it also includes the qualifier “without due process of law.” The 5th is more about due process than straight life, liberty, and property.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don’t know, you can say that it outlines the rights there. Granted, I agree with you that we have a right to privacy because I feel that’s included in the right to life, but it does outline those rights in the Bill of Rights.

A right to privacy? Of course you have it. Just because it is not in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Those are pretty clear cut. The Constitution’s purpose is to enumerate certain powers held by the US government and certain certain limitations upon the US government, and no more than that. The purpose of it is not to define, in narrow, restrictive language, what the rights of the people are. This is what most people fail to understand about the Constitution.

Your right to privacy is part of your right to property. It’s your property, no one else, including the government, has a right to intrude on it, except within certain explicitly defined conditions established within the Constitution and law.

But I just put the Herman work in my Amazon shopping cart. Thanks for the tip, and for the community, and this blog, while I’m at it.

First two installments of my work here; there’ll be about 10-12 in total, I think. Right now it’s pretty free form:
http://www.indiancowboy.net/blog/?p=147
http://www.indiancowboy.net/blog/?p=197

Once that’s done I’ll feel completely comfortable reading them without worrying that they’ll influence my own development unduly.

funnily enough I owe most of my insight to behavioral ecology, honestly. The one thing that amazes me about the classical liberal writings that I have read, and especially the little quotes you see every now and then, is just how much like game theorists classical liberals sound (since game theory wasn’t applied to behavior until late 19th century).

Since game theoretics provide our only predictive method of studying social interactions, and since classical liberalism is the only political ideology that makes the same assumptions of human behavior as econ and behavioral ecology make, guess which one seems most valid to me?

Interesting that you have a pretty solid grasp with not a whole lot of study. That seems to me to speak strongly for the insights into philosophy and human nature of the Scottish Enlightenment.