Things like free speech, free assembly etc. are inherent to self ownership, as is the right to own property. The ownership of any particular piece of property is certainly not “inalienable”, however, unlike the other rights you mention.

Who exactly has property rights to “public property”? For example, who do you think should own the offshore oil reserves? How could they demonstrate that ownership? I agree that in a free market the issue would be easy to deal with, but what about the transition? Should the government just announce “everything we own is up for grabs” and the first person to assert ownership gets everything? Maybe someone will put a buoy off the coast with large writing saying “all the oil here belongs to me”?

In cases where property was specifically expropriated from identifiable individuals then by all means return the property to them before any auctions. For the rest, feel free to suggest a better option then auctions… I would be happy to hear what you have to say.

In the future, however, please refrain from questioning my respect for property rights, especially when I specifically agreed that the government does not have a legitimate claim on the land.

“Over the decades, Congress has always raised the debt ceiling as Uncle Sam’s indebtedness grew.”

The point is that politicians are incorrigibly irresponsible. So, would the proceeds be used to pay down the debt? Of course not. Instead they would be used for some new boondoggle or to expand existing ones. The debt ceiling might, might, cease to grow for a short period of time, but it would continue to increase once again as soon as the politicians had burned through the proceeds.

It’s not hard to figure out that the assets would fall into the hands of organized crime, i.e. businesses that rely upon government patronage, subsidization, and the rigging of commerce to their advantage by the passage of rafts of laws. Of course, the assets are already in the hands of organized crime, but at least in the case of parks they are not being gouged up, bulldozed, etc. just so that some criminal can live luxuriously on large estate or plunder the resources in the usual manner of turbocapitalism.

Suggestions for a massive asset sale are harebrained at best until at least one change has been made. That change is to delete the 2nd clause of Section 8 of Article I. It reads:

“To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Of course, upon deletion of that clause, a crisis becomes immediate. The budget will have to be slashed, or taxes increased immediately (thus assuring a revolt), or some assets sold off. Until abolition of borrowing, asset sales should be resisted.

I like the idea of letting people opt out of Social Security and Medicare. But I would make it a rule that the people who remain may not get revenue from any source other than their respective taxes. Even at age 64, I would opt out of receiving any benefits if the government said that I would not be taxed for Social Security or Medicare and that my general tax dollars would not go to filling these programs’ deficits.

I agree with the principle that the government does not have claim to the land, but at this point I don’t see any better way to privatize them.

Nice post. I made most of these same points on a public radio appearance last month. Another point to consider is the spending on the wars, budgeted around $175 billion/year, which by it self could fund federal debt service for nearly a year and is entirely under executive branch discretion. With bin Laden officially dead, now might be the perfect time to declare victory and come home and avoid the “inevitable” default at the same time.

I am sick of those in government who whine because we have a poor economy. There are many solutions and the most effective would not require cutting any of the programs that actually help people.

You have pin-pointed one of the easiest ways to solve our problem, but those whinning about the problem actually don’t want it solved. They have found that whinning is a politically winning technique.