Who Needs Property Rights?

    One of the most central issues to libertarians and most “conservatives” is that of Property Rights. That is, the right to own, use, and dispose of your property as you see fit. This is also probably one of the most violated rights in America. But who really needs property rights? Who benefits most from them?

    It is the argument of those on the socialist/big-government side of the aisle that property rights benefit the “rich” (whoever that is) and not the poor. But this could not be further from the truth. The poor, the struggling, and the “middle class” need property rights as much or more than the so-called “rich”. How is that, you ask?

    Property rights are more critical to the freedom of those with little property than those with a lot of property. If a wealthy person who owns many, many pieces of property has one of them taken away, or has the use of it limited, the rich person hasn’t lost a great deal of personal liberty. But if a poor person who owns very little has their rights of ownership violated, it could easily impact them severely.

    Small farms are one example of a middle-class to lower-income group to whom property rights are extremely crucial. Without protections on property rights, many struggling farmers will lose everything, and many already have.

    In America we enjoy a high degree of income mobility. That means that you can be very poor today, but be doing quite well tomorrow. This is an important feature of our economic system. And a vital component to this income mobility is property. Without sufficient rights to ownership and property, we would lack the springboard needed to engage this income mobility. Property and ownership is often a critical tool necessary to lift one’s self up from low income levels. Were property rights to be wholly denied, the poor would have little to no means of ever improving their situation themselves.

    In fact, there were times when women and blacks were not allowed to own property. It became a moral imperative to recognize these individual’s rights to property and ownership. Yet the same activist groups who would heartily agree that these instances were victories for civil rights are the same groups that want to infringe upon everyone’s property rights! Surely this would be a drastic step backwards. Indeed, even farther backwards than it once was. If it was so important for the disadvantaged to be able to own property back then, why is it not today?

    In addition to property rights and rights of ownership being critical to economic viability, property rights are also vitally important to personal liberty. Without property rights, the government can take what little you have, or render what you have unusable. If you are forced into a situation of living without ownership of anything, or worse, living on the government’s aid, there are many liberties you lose. For instance, living in government housing projects carries with it various and sundry limitations, restrictions, and regulations, some of which are much more burdensome than if you lived in a privately owned apartment.

    Speaking of apartments, let me draw upon another example of how property rights and rights of ownership are critical to personal liberty. There have been several cases in recent history where owners of apartments have been forced by the government to allow people to reside in their apartments who practice things that violate the owner’s principles. “But apartment complex owners are rich,” I hear you say. Despite the fact that, rich or poor, everyone has the same rights, these same government regulations apply to lower-income households who offer to rent a room out of their homes to try to make some extra income. Under these laws, people are forced to allow people of whom they disapprove live within their own homes! In some cases, the home owners have Christian beliefs and their religion prohibits them from aiding or abetting what the Bible refers to as sin. Thus, when an unmarried couple, or a homosexual couple want to rent their room, the home owner is forced by law to violate their religious beliefs – in their own home no less! This is a position in which nobody should be placed. The abridgement of property rights and rights of ownership in this case means that the home owners (or apartment owners for that matter) do not, in fact, have freedom of religion. Rich or poor, these kinds of violations of fundamental rights cannot be allowed. Even if you’re not religious you must ask yourself the question: where will it stop and where will it lead?

    With cases like these where one’s most fundamental rights are at stake, we see that rights of ownership and property are basic and essential human rights. But let us look at one more example.

    In the so-called “third world” where there is little rule of law and only rule of men, it is not in any way inconceivable that the ruler of one of these countries could seize one’s home, one’s land, one’s car, or anything for that matter, for his own purposes. Not only for his own purposes, but upon a completely arbitrary basis, and without due process or any need to give account for why it is being taken. If such a “third world” government wanted to take something you have, you have no alternative or recourse but to comply.

    Contrast this with how even the President of the United States legally could not arbitrarily decide to confiscate your home, your car, etc. If he really wanted to and had good and compelling reason, he would still have to give account for it and there would have to be due process. This is because in America we still have a modicum of property rights. But it is not where it should be as I’ve shown above.

    The underlying principle that must be understood is that if you are denied rights of ownership and property by the government, then essentially that property is ultimately owned (insofar as it is controlled) by the government, and you are only allowed to keep it, use it, and dispense with it at the pleasure of the government.

    As we have seen, property rights are an imperative not only to the wealthy, but also, and more importantly, to the “middle class” and to the poor. Without them, we cannot long be free. Nor can we command our own economic destiny without them.