entirely on the particular state and condition, in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that UTILITY, which results to the public from their strict and regular observance (Enquiry, p23)." Seizing private property for public good in this sense is moral, because it serves public utility. On the other hand, seizure of a rich man's property to give to those of lesser fortune lends itself to an effort to reach some sort of equality. Hume is very much against such actions stating, "Perfect equality of possessions, destroying all subordination, weakens extremely the authority of magistracy, and must reduce all power nearly to a level, as well as property (Enquiry, p28)." From this point of view, such actions would be wrong.Under natural law a person's property may be taken at any time, so he enters into a society and a social contract. As part of the social contract he makes his goods and services available to the society in return for the benefits of being a member of the society. This view is also reiterated in The Constitution of the United States, of which Donald Trump is a citizen. Probable cause is given to take some of his excessive property. This action is also supported by Hume, assuming that Trump was not singled out because he is rich. Returning to the specific question at hand, is it right for a government to seize a man's, Donald Trump's, private property to serve the public good, the answer is YES, according to natural right, societal right, United States law, and Hume's morals....
