And any conservative who believes that ‘socialism’ poses some sort of a ‘threat’ exhibits only his stupidity and ignorance of ‘socialism.’
How would socialism be implemented? More specifically, how would socialism affect people's property rights?
Specifically what rights are you concerned about?
It is called LIBERTY.
Capitalism is an economic system. Liberalism is a political system. Get educated.
Your childish answer to my answer to your question, LIBERTY was correct.
I'd suggest taking a course or two on our Constitution unless you intend to remain ignorant of the subject. Hillsdale College offers one on line, and required of all their students. Oh, it is free.
Economic Liberty and the Constitution: An Introduction
By
Paul Larkin,
David E. Bernstein,
Randy E Barnett and
Clark M Neily III
[...]
In the 1776 classic work
The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith criticized monopolies and extolled the virtues of free trade and a free-market economy.
[37] The Virginia Declaration of Rights, enacted in 1776, the same year that Adam Smith’s
The Wealth of Nations was published, incorporated that principle into Virginian law, stating that “[a]ll men … have certain inherent rights … namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
[38] Founders such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and John Marshall were familiar with Smith’s theories, and they believed that the protection of private property was necessary for economic growth.
[39]
It should therefore hardly be surprising that the text of the Constitution itself contains several provisions that safeguard the workings of a free market.
- Congress has the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce[40] in order to prevent the states from gumming up free trade with protectionist legislation.[41]
- Congress cannot take private property—which, in theory, may be taken only “for public use”[42]—without affording the owner “due process of law” and without paying him “just compensation” for his loss.[43]
- The states cannot coin money, cannot require that debts be paid in any currency other than silver or gold, and cannot impair the obligation of contracts.[44]
In sum, one need not agree with historian Charles Beard that the principal reason why the Framers adopted the Constitution was to safeguard property rights against the government
[45] to conclude that the Constitution does seek to protect economic liberty in several distinct and important ways.
There also are several provisions of the Constitution that protect the right to acquire and own property, to engage in commerce, and to pursue a livelihood. Start with the ones that expressly refer to those liberties.
- The Contract Clause prohibits a state from nullifying existing contracts.
- The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that “[c]itizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”[46] Given the Framers’ belief in the value of economic liberty, they might readily have seen the freedom to pursue any lawful occupation as a “privilege” that the clause protects.
- The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses bar the federal and state governments from seizing someone’s assets without following whatever procedures the law requires.[47]
- The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause limits expropriation of property to “public uses” and guarantees “just compensation” for such seizures.
- The Ninth Amendment provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”[48] and several scholars have relied on that text to defend a right to economic freedom.[49]
[...]
Read more:
Economic Liberty and the Constitution: An Introduction