Rand Paul Quotes

What vested rights so high or so sacred as a man’s right to himself, to his wife and children, to his liberty, and to the fruits of his own industry? Did not our fathers declare that those rights were inalienable?

Make no mistake. Without individual property, none are free.

The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no private property shall be taken for a public use without the payment of just compensation.

While I believe our Constitution allows for State and local governments to execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that specifically serve the public good, condemning property solely to implement economic development plans is not serving the public good.

... to teach the necessity of respect for the rights of persons and property as fundamental to every form of government...to teach the duty of government, to encourage and protect individual and group initiative and enterprise, to foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property, and to preserve the ownership and lawful use of property when acquired.

American capitalism no longer guarantees the property rights of small owners when they conflict with private interests such as corporations building pipelines. Their need for corporate profits overrides what once were private property rights.

The Constitution was essentially an economic document based upon the concept that the fundamental rights of private property are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities.

Every family in America has the right to live anywhere they can afford.

While private property is commonly lodged in the subject, whenever exigency required supply all property is transferred to the sovereign. The consent of Parliament is not necessary for the imposition of taxes.

The exercise of the power of eminent domain is against common right. It subverts the usual attributes of the ownership of property.

I desire to secure every privilege and every right to every citizen in the United States…. I understand the amendment ... to authorize Congress to establish uniform laws throughout the United States upon the subject named, the protection of life, liberty, and property. I am unwilling that Congress shall have any such power

All over this land women have no political existence. Laws pass over our heads that we can not unmake. Our property is taken from us without our consent. The babes we bear in anguish and carry in our arms are not ours.

…it is the peculiar function of the state and the city to guarantee every man the free and undisturbed control of his own particular property.

If a Tory does not believe that private property is one of the main bulwarks of individual freedom, then he had better become a socialist and have done with it.

If history could prove and teach us anything, it would be that private ownership of the means of production is a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being.... Only nations committed to the principle of private property have risen above penury and produced science, art and literature.

If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because [it is] within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savour of military law about it. And the same is true of slave

A due regard for individual property rights does not preclude assigning the state its share in national resources.

From the ownership of women the concept of ownership extends itself to include the products of their industry, and so there arises the ownership of things as well as of persons.

The sanctity of private property is so fundamental a part of the American settlement that the country's conservatives look with suspicion on any policy that seems to prevent people from doing what they will with what is theirs.

I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant - but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.

Climate change is not an excuse to give the federal government ever more power over private property and state resources.

I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.

The notion that one's home is one's castle and you can pull up the drawbridge is not one that people in public policy circles believe in.

A relation is formed betwixt every man and the fruits of his own labour, the very thing we call property, which he himself is sensible of, and of which every other is equally sensible. Yours and mine are terms in all languages, familiar among savages, and understood even by children. This is a fact, which every human creature can testify.

The function of Government must be to favor no small group at the expense of its duty to protect the rights of personal freedom and of private property of all its citizens.