Myth: No one has a right to my property.
Fact: Our property rights are defined by democratic government, which is the
sovereign owner of the nation's territory.
Summary
Property is anything whose use is controlled, usually by
threat of force. This may include land, objects, ideas, even people
(slaves). Groups are more efficient and effective at defending
property than lone individuals. Such groups use military force
to protect property from external threats, and police force to
protect property from internal threats. These groups (as represented by
government)
are the ultimate owners, since they exercise the force that protects
property. As ultimate owners, governments create a subordinate
property system for their citizens to use. Many governments have
liberalized citizen's rights to use property to a high degree,
but the ultimate owners still place limits on its use, in the
form of zoning laws, property taxes, etc. Awarding citizens 100
percent ownership and control of their property would recreate
the anarchic system of nations on a smaller scale, with land and
business owners acting as the rulers of their own pocket principalities.
Like all sovereign tribes, principalities or nations, this would
result in instability and frequent war. Democratic government
is the only other system allows everyone to possess the nation's
property.
[Note: some of the arguments in this essay have been copied
or borrowed, with permission, from the
Non-Libertarian FAQ and
some personal communications with its author,
Mike Huben.]
Argument
Ultimately, all debates over taxation and regulation comes down to issues of property. What, exactly, is property?
Who owns it? And does anyone other than the owner have a right to it?
As with the debate on rights, the debate over property is best divided into two sections. The first section
describes the property system we actually have now, while the second section describes what property
systems are ideally possible.
PART ONE: The Current Property System
Property is defined as anything whose use is controlled, usually by threat of force. For example, if
you own an acre of land, you control how you wish to use it, who may be granted or denied access to it,
and whether you wish to sell it or not. Your control of the land is protected by force, either by the police,
the military or even your own protective measures, such as guns or dogs.
Land is only one example of property. Other examples include objects (like bicycles or personal trinkets), ideas
(like intellectual property or copyrights), and even people (like slaves). Again, this is a description of property
as it actually is, not how it should be in an ideal world.
Simply laying claim to property is not enough to make it yours. An owner's claim to
possess something is only as good as the force that backs it up.
If a thief steals property, or an invader pillages it, then it
has changed hands. The former owner may continue to claim that
the property is morally his, and we might entirely sympathize,
but not all the claims in the world will change the fact of possession.
Only force -- or its credible threat -- will.
Of course, it is possible that the original owner can reach an
agreement with the thief to return it, or that groups of people
can agree to form a cooperative system of property. But these
social agreements -- otherwise known as the "social contract"
-- are only as good as the force that backs them up. Not all the
agreement in the world will prevent someone from seizing your
property if they decide to dishonor it. Therefore, the basis of
all property is force or the threat of force, and it is the topic
we must first examine.
The relationship between property and force
Groups are more efficient and effective than individuals at
controlling and defending property. One reason is the strength
provided by numbers; another is specialization of labor. Groups
are doubly efficient at defending property because families defending
their homes are also defending their nation as citizens, just as soldiers
who defend their nation are also defending their families' homes.
The purpose of any territorial group is twofold. First, it defends
against external invasions, either through the use or the credible
threat of military force. Second, it devises a subordinate system
of property for its individual members, and defends this system
against internal robbery through the use or the credible threat
of police or private forces. Both efforts result in a more stable
and secure system of property ownership.
Societies have long competed with each other for property, sometimes
going to war to conquer it. They remain sovereign only to the
extent that they can defend against their competitors' threats.
Land purchases, treaties and other forms of property acquisitions
have no "legal" basis in a higher court -- such a court
does not exist in an anarchic system of nations. These agreements
are merely symbols, and are only effective as long as they are
backed up by the requisite force. Hitler, for example, simply ignored
the Treaty of Versailles, calling it a "scrap of paper"
as he moved his troops into the Rhineland. And for much of its
history, the U.N. has passed resolutions that were completely
ignored by most nations. It was only recently that its resolutions
were given "teeth," with the creation of U.N. peace-keeping
forces.
The same principle applies to the domestic policing of property.
Property is safe only to the extent that domestic force can stop
thieves. But, unlike most international force, domestic force
is generally applied according to law. In our case, these laws
are the result of a group agreement to allocate property and defend
it in certain prescribed ways.
This gives rise to another dichotomy in the property system: ultimate
property and subordinate property. Ultimate property goes by many
names: sovereignty, absolute property rights, ultimate ownership,
real ownership, etc. Those vested with this kind of authority have the
power to create a subordinate property system for other people
to use. An (imperfect) analogy is that of a landlord and tenant.
The landlord is something like the ultimate owner of the property,
who creates a subordinate property system in the form of an
apartment complex. These apartments are rented out to tenants
under the terms of an agreement, which mandate the exchange of
rents for the tenant's use of the property. In fact, the agreement
allows the tenant such liberal and private inhabitation rights
that the tenant may frequently refer to the rented space as "his"
or "her" apartment.
The government (which is merely a representative of the group)
is the nation's ultimate owner of property, because
it is the entity vested with the force necessary to control it.
This is an inescapable conclusion: if other entities had the force,
they would be the ultimate owners. (We will explore possible alternatives
to the government's ultimate ownership shortly, but we should
note that this is the system we actually have in use today.) As
the controller of the nation's property, it sets the rules of
the subordinate property system. Most modern governments have
made the rules of property use quite liberal, allowing a high
degree of personal freedom. But there are limitations nonetheless.
The limitations of property
U.S. citizens purchase their land encumbered by U.S., state,
and local government rule, the same way that land might be bought
encumbered by liens, without timber or mineral rights, etc. Individuals
who own property might think it's all theirs, because, after all,
they hold the deed and title. But deeds and titles identify property
as recognized by U.S., state and local governments. This
type of property often comes with limitations and requirements,
both publicly and privately derived. Failure to abide by those
limitations and requirements forfeits the support of the ultimate
owners, and may cause them to side with other claimants or take
direct action.
For example, private transactions may stipulate that property
be sold without water, mineral or timber rights. Or property may
be sold with easements, such as ones granting your neighbor the
right to cross over it to reach a road. Or it may be sold with
limitations to its usage: for example, the Adirondack State Park
was bequeathed to the people of New York State with the stipulation
that it remain forever wild.
Public limitations on property are not much different from private
ones. Property is sold with zoning and tax requirements. A public
equivalent of an easement is the Fourth Amendment, which allows
the government to enter and search your property if it has a legal
search warrant.
As noted above, many modern governments have made the rules of
property use quite liberal; one example is the personal defense
of private property. Although the police are charged with protecting
property, the law gives citizens a large (but limited) degree
of freedom in protecting their own. For example, you may use a
sufficient level of force to stop a pickpocket, but you do not
have the legal right to kill him. (If you do, the aforementioned
police will pay you a courtesy call.)
The rules of property ownership also include definitions of what
can and cannot be property. History shows us many forms of property
that have been abolished (for example, ownership of slaves, women,
and children) or forms of property that have been explicitly created
(intellectual property) or forms of property that have been privately
asserted, but defined by government as commons (control of air
passage over private lands).
A person buys property already encumbered by the rules of the
original or ultimate owner, and agrees to them as part of the
purchase. The original or ultimate owner gets to determine the
method of agreement, which can be either explicit or implicit.
But once having agreed to these rules, the new owner cannot void
them. For example, if someone buys property that comes with an
easement allowing a neighbor to cross over it, the new owner does
not have the right to cancel it. And the original sale may require
that the easements be included in the next sale. In the U.S.,
all property is sold under the continuing provisions of its ultimate
owners, the U.S., state, and local governments.
PART TWO: Possible types of property systems
Some people are dissatisfied with the current property system,
claiming that better and more just property systems are possible.
Alternatives exist at both the ultimate and subordinate property
levels. Let's examine all the possibilities:
Ultimate property systems
There are only four possibilities of who may own the ultimate
property: