Private property is all that matters in the context of this passage written by Dr. Paul. Yet, the Constitution, including all of the amendments, has the term “property” a total of only four times: once in the body, twice in the Fifth Amendment, and once in the subsequent amendments.
The context of the use of the term is either in the protection of government property, or the means by which the government can deprive an individual of property. In no case is the term “property” explicitly used in the context of a government being formed to protect the private property of the individual.
There are many reasons to criticize the Constitution when one considers the document in the context of libertarian thinking and individual rights (forgive my redundancy). At its most fundamental, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, I didn’t sign it. If I didn’t sign it, I am not obliged.
However, if individually presented with the document, is it one worth signing? It seems to me the only reason I would make this type of pact with my neighbors, one for some form of mutual or community governance, is for protection and defense of my property.
On this basis, the Constitution fails – it does not even contain the words that make it worth signing.