government to seize private property for public good. He says, "We grant that each person alienates, by the social compact, only that portion of...his goods...whose use is of consequence to the community; but we also must grant that only the sovereign is the judge of what is of consequence (The Social Contract, p157)." If something is needed for the public good, a person must give it up readily, as part of the social contract. This holds true as long as the sovereign does not ask for things arbitrarily, but for a specific use. The Constitution of the United States gives specific laws as to seizure of property in the Bill of Rights. Article IV states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This statement seems to be in line with that of Rousseau, that property can not be seized without just cause. However, is public utility just cause? A special case arises with the subject of taxes. Article XVI of the Bill of Rights asserts, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Taxes serve the public good in that they provide for the general welfare. If seizure of property in the form of money for public utility is justified, is the taking of non-monetary property fair?Hume ventures into the realm of morality, as it concerns such actions in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. One may come up with two opposite answers in light of Hume's arguments. He asserts that an act or an attribute is virtuous if it has public utility. Hume writes, "...the rules of equity and justice depend...
