Honestly, when I got this translation it was so absurd that I was completely sure that I miss something here. What does "property" oblige you to? How can state's constitution dictate to what end property can be used?
If I would be living in a country with such a constitution, I would either try to change it, move somewhere else or just consider myself not morally bound by the country's laws as completely immoral.
> That's kinda like saying cars should only go fast, if you also want to not die when taking a breath outside, you have to wear a gas mask or deploy nanobots that remove pollutants from the atmosphere.
I think that for a productive discussion, we need to separate two things: main goal and side conditions. You have a good point that any paperclip optimizer should have necessary side conditions, like "not destroy the world while you're at it". However, in it's decision making process these conditions should be very different from the main goal: they should be simple boolean categories, just something that you have to maintain at all times, not a numeric parameter that you can increase indefinetly - this should be goal.
Thankfully, companies already have boolean conditions like that, they're called laws.
Immediately preceding is the order to always preserve and protect private property.
> Property obliges. Its use should also serve the public good.
which is more or less accurate.
> If you want to spend your resources on public good, find a good charity.
That's kinda like saying cars should only go fast, if you also want to not die when taking a breath outside, you have to wear a gas mask or deploy nanobots that remove pollutants from the atmosphere.
Public transport is fastest when everybody just uses kung fu to move others out of the way, and when the doors are razor sharp and close on a timer -- if you also want people to not be injured, go to a hospital.