The tenants of private property remain a guiding and integral component in the continued status of liberalism. This is irrespective of the different ways liberalism has manifested itself across the globe. While liberal policies are applied differently, rights to private property remain of intrinsic worth and value.
But why do most societies continue to agree that without private property it is impossible to have a free society as Milton Friedman argued? What if we instead look at the concept of property ownership and repoliticise a concept which is too frequently considered an infallible foundational truth.
Private property revolves around the principle that the decision making process around the usage of resources rests with the individual (or family). This usage means that an individual canot be prevented from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others. In almost all cases, it is the right of the proprietor to decide what happens to their property regardless of any implications.
Private property is deemed necessary because it creates a suitable environment in which individuals can prosper as free agents where they can invest and innovate without fear of the property being taken away and their time wasted.
Furthermore, the way that private property has been manipulated into an unalienable human right has led to a position whereby a country choosing to implement property rights in a different way are by definition committing a crime against humanity.
One potential side effect of these private property rights is that the extension of market relations (as more individuals become involved in the global market place) has transferred “power away from democratically elected governments with a mandate to ensure universal service provision, towards private capital concerned primarily with furthering opportunities for accumulation.” While many would argue that the pursuit of private capital will make the economy more efficient, few would argue against government intervention in some instances.
Image courtesy of Aaron Van Dorn © 2013, some rights reserved.
We see the British government’s HS2 project going through neighbourhoods and thus requiring the obligatory demolition of homes (with compensation). Despite the apparent untouchable nature of private property, there are times when governments can, and do, intervene and overrule such rights for the common good. We thus see that despite the rhetoric, private property is not always considered an unalienable, untouchable right.
It is extremely difficult to argue that formal property rights of some sort are not necessary. They protect people from being exploited or stolen from, moreover, such rights, if universal, bring everyone into a social contract which facilitates cooperation and thus society’s productivity as a whole can increase. However, these property rights do not have to be private property rights.
There are three main sorts of property arrangement. The first has been discussed already. The other two are common and collective property rights. Both of these have greater potential to utilise a collection of pooled resources. They both also approach property as a tool which can have both good and bad consequences, it is important to recognise that it is a tool rather than of intrinsic worth that we will be able to utilise it in the best possible way.
An example of this happening is the Brixton Green project which aims to develop but also retain land for community ownership and benefit. The act of having the area owned by the community aims to bring social goods to the area. Through rents rather than the single capital asset sale, Brixton Green aims to make more money for the collective good which can then be reinvested in the area.
Such examples show that it is not necessary to have a total overhaul of existing society to have a change in our understanding of how we can protect property. Instead, it shows us that there are alternatives to private property rights. Rather than abandoning the desire and protection of individual freedom (through private property rights) we must conceptualise what individual freedom means.
Rather than pitting individuals against one another in a zero-sum game, as the existing economic system seems to do, there is scope to move away from a pursuit of self-interested gains towards greater integration in society. This can not only help to remove some of the problems with private property rights outlined above but can also contribute to greater individual freedom as we cease to view one another as threats and can thus work collaboratively.
About the Author
