"The poorest man," said William Pitt, "may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter!" While folks on both sides of the Atlantic like to sum up that comment by saying "One's home is one's castle", we Americans can express it even more briefly: "Fourth Amendment!".

It is my intention today to show that this Fourth Amendment security, and other fundamental guarantees, are inextricably intertwined with the Human Right to peacefully and honestly acquire, own, use, and dispose of private property. This is so much so that David Friedman, the more consistently pro-free market son of Milton Friedman, declares that private property is "the machinery of freedom"; it is so much so that the old collectivist slogan, "Human Rights over Property Rights" is as illogical as saying "Legs over limbs": legs are limbs, as the Right to private property is a Human Right.

In fact, a look at the U. S. Constitution, including some key provisions of The Bill Of Rights, will show just how many of our fundamental protections are rooted in a belief in the Right to private property. We can start with in Article I. This Article requires that bills to raise revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, which is closer to the individual citizen. The Founders wanted that protection for our money, which is, of course, a form of property.

Article I also forbids the States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts, because they respected our Right to decide for ourselves how to peacefully and honestly use our property. That same article, as well, forbids bills of attainder, which are legislative confiscations of: private property.

Article VI declares that the public debt of the Confederation would be honored by the Union, because those who had lent the Government their money - their property - were entitled to have it returned.

But the real story of how respect for private property protects our Freedoms is found in the Bill of Rights.

Did you ever wonder why the 1st Amendment forbids the establishment of religion, as well as guaranteeing the free exercise thereof? Especially since there were countries in Europe that had official churches but still respected the right to attend others?

It's because the Founders knew it was wrong to force individuals to subsidize beliefs they found objectionable with their money - with their property.

Unfortunately, many State legislatures don't understand that the same objection should apply when it comes to politics. Unlike Federal campaign financing, which comes only from those individuals who choose to participate, some States subsidize political campaigns from the taxes of all of their citizens. You thus have individuals forced to finance ideologies and political parties they find repugnant.

But Congress and the Federal Supreme Court are no longer completely innocent, either, when it comes to disrespect for the Right of individuals to decide how their money is spent on politics. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which could just as well have been named the Bipartisan Censorship and Repression Act, it is now illegal to broadcast advertisements critical of incumbent members of Congress during the last sixty days before a General Election. The Supreme Court upheld the act, accepting the nonsensical assertion that speech which is paid for isn't really speech.

Carried to its logical conclusion, this premise could lead to bans on bumper-stickers, campaign buttons, yard signs, newspaper advertisements, and even handbills and brochures. If you think that's unlikely, remember you're living in a city heavily influenced by those who claim that billboards and other commercial signs don't count as speech. The 3rd Amendment protects our homes from being taken over as military quarters in peacetime, and from being arbitrarily taken over even in war, because the Founders respected the sanctity of private homes - private property.

Of course, the 4th Amendment, as I noted earlier, is entirely based on the Right to private property, and is one of the most important civil liberties in our history.

It protects our Right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects" - in our property. It bans unreasonable searches and seizures, and lays down strict rules which must be followed for searches and seizures to be considered reasonable. This fundamental protection, too, is under assault today.

But where the assault on our 1st Amendment property Rights is coming primarily from the Left, the assault on our 4th Amendment guarantees is coming primarily from the Right.

The 5th Amendment guarantees that eminent domain is invoked only with just compensation, as an acknowledgment of our Right to - private property.

Even the courts are required to tread carefully when the possibility of taking someone's money - their property - exists, with the 7th Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil suits involving what was then a significant amount of money, and the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

And then, to tighten the chains on the power of the Federal government to infringe on our Right to peacefully acquire, own, and control private property, the 9th and 10th Amendments were passed, protecting Rights not specified and denying the central government any authority it was not granted but might wish to usurp.

These two Amendments are often forgotten or ignored, but are vital. As an example, even if the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual's Right to keep and bear arms - which it does - the 9th Amendment would. And even if other sections of the Constitution do not protect a Right to privacy - which they do - the 9th Amendment would. Can you imagine living in a society where those Constitutional guarantees did not exist? Would you want to live in such a society? I wouldn't. And, frankly, while many people in power probably would, I don't think many of the average Americans who support, or at least go along with, the increasing erosions of these protections would, either, once they got a taste of life in such a society. Unfortunately, by then it may be too late.

The question then becomes; what should the individual American do? My suggestion; remember that Liberty is indivisible, and that we cannot protect any of our Rights while voting away others, even if we are told that such votes would be for a noble purpose - noble, of course, as defined by politicians of either the Right and the Left. So whenever you go to vote, whether to choose among candidates or to decide referenda, always remind yourself beforehand of an encounter on the steps of Constitution Hall just after the Federal Constitution had been completed.

An elderly woman walked up to a delegate from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and inquired, "Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have? A Republic or an Empire?"

Benjamin Franklin replied, "You have a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

Copyright 2002 Jeff Daiell. All Rights Reserved.

Jeff Daiell is proprietor of Jeff Daiell Communications and available as a speaker, writer, editor, or MC.