> Well, maybe that's because you're being too pollyanna-ish. As Clinton
> advisor Richard Feinberg put it years ago, democracy only works when
> there's fundamental agreement on the nature of property. The big questions
> are just not up for electoral decision.
The nature of property in this country has been constantly up for discussion since the country's founding. Slavery was all about property rights. And we continually debate what powers the electoral system should have over property, although a bunch of folks on this list were all for taking that democratic debate away from the electorate and handing it to the courts after the Kelo decision.
I happen to be in the middle of a law review about property rights and the political ability to modify it under state law and it's surprising how little restriction there is inherently in this country on what restrictions can be put on use of property.
We may take for granted civil rights laws, environmental laws, labor laws and so on, but at various points all were considered violations of property rights, and were subjected to heavy debate on that basis.
It's an easy excuse to say it's not up for discussion when progressives haven't won the debate, but it's just a copout to say the big questions are never debated.
Nathan newman