see Your Money or Your Land II - The Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus Brief in Didden v. Village of Port Chester:

Then consider:

Swap "property owners" with individual liberty interests, including a demand for uniform application of general law as to debt.

Swap "redevelopment area" with federal student loan program, where "conflation" too is a problem that dismisses affronts to individual liberties under the color of a general law and a public purpose.

"Self-interested private parties would bid and lobby local governments to create redevelopment areas that they could then turn into cash cows for themselves."

When does the right of a private entity such as Lewis & Clark law school lose the right to collect on a debt? Is it after the expiration of a non-renewed judgment?

When does the right of a private entity such as Sallie Mae lose the right to collect on a debt? Is it after the tolling of the Statue of Limitations?

One would think that such claims by private entities would simply vanish by operation of law. Yet, enter the role of the federal government and their use of administrative power. They make advance payment to the private beneficiaries, as though such was a public good, and then demand that the private borrower deliver cash long after the period for collection would have expired had the private beneficiary sought collections so late in the game. The feds even supplement their collection authority by declaring in the code that state court judgments are of no consequence, at least as to the time period set under state law for the automatic expiration of the time period for collection on a judgment. This, arguably, relies on a split between substantive and procedural rights in the context of federal bankruptcy law. Yet, the "injury" of the demands for money still persist, like that of the conclusory word extortion, implying the lack of proper legal authority to collect.

Let us not forget that the attention given to private property rights is not some abstract notion but rather just one means of protecting individual liberty; a larger issue than a description of property rights.

Which law professor in the Amicus would foreswear the acceptance of cash from students whom the government will most surely demand, uniquely demand by reason of a special program just as surely as any economic development plan, private cover for the government's gift to another private party?

Their brief is here.

Also see the expression of demands for liberty of thought and association noted here (Victim of Partisan Persecution--Not:) regarding the ABA; which in light of the above is itself not an unrelated issue to student loans and the loss of liberty.

I could babble on about debt slavery in general and macro economic policy but there is only so much time in a day, for you and me alike.