Re: “Omitted” rights
Craig Bolton: “Further, it is questionable what such a right would involve if robust property rights were otherwise defined and enforced.”
Well, O.K., but this is true of just about any other right on the books, too. (What would a freedom of the press, or free exercise of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms, involve if robust property rights were otherwise defined and enforced? Well, pretty much nothing; but I can’t see how that’s an argument against appealing to freedom of the press, the free exercise of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms as principles in legal reasoning about rights.)