Categories
BW Member Blog

Existence and Right to Property

Right. Left. Communism. Socialism. Fascism. Americanism. Parliamentarism. Bolshevism. Anarchosyndicalism. You can go on forever with this. If you want to cleave the philosophies of history in two, there is only one dimension that expresses the fundamental difference between the Red and Blue states:

Property rights.

You either have them, or you don’t. You are either free, or you aren’t. You have the ability to enter into contracts based on what you own, or you don’t. You can use tools and land to make food for your family, or you can’t. You own your mouth, or you don’t.

You are a citizen, or a helpless animal.

It can be argued cogently that without property rights, you do not have any other rights at all, making it the most important one. Unfortunately, that never found its way into the Bill of Rights directly, nor in the general text of the Constitution. This does not mean that it wasn’t hotly debated. John Adams, Founding Dude, put it this way:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Clarence Carlson, writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, says:

There is probably no way of conceiving of individual rights other than as either property rights or extensions of property rights. Our right to life stems from the fact that it is our own (and only) life. Our right to the disposal of our time stems from the fact that it is our own time. Our right to the use of our faculties stems from the fact that they are our own. Remove from them the concept of private property and the claim to them goes as well.

Daniel Webster wrote that “power naturally and necessarily follows property.”

John Adams, again:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

The estimable Calvin Coolidge stated, “Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing.”

America has had experience with socialism (which refuses property rights) before, in 1623, before we threw off British rule and built our own government. It didn’t work out very well and was quickly thrown out before everyone died. Due to William Bradford’s open mind and gut-level intelligence, the Plymouth colony survived. From the pages of the Property Owners Association of Riverside County:

In the Plymouth colony, the Pilgrims attempted to implement communal property, as a Christian act.  William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth colony in 1623 wrote in Of Plymouth Plantation that they thought “that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then [sic] God.  For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.  For the young-men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine [complain] that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense.”

The colony soon was on the verge of starvation.

Bradford wrote, “So they began to think how they might raise as much torne [corn] as they could, and obtain a better crop then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.  At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corve [crops from labor] every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before.  And so assigned to every family a parcel of land…This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more torne [corn] was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.  The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set torne [corn], which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tyranny and oppression.” 

After changing to a private property system in 1623, within a short period of time, the lives of the Pilgrims were greatly improved.

Bringing our focus into the 21st century, we have the case of rancher Wayne Hage who, 393 years after the Plymouth Colony, won in 2016 a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he had himself developed. Mr. Hage perhaps said it most succinctly of all:

If you don’t have the right to own and control property then you are property.

Right. Left. Communist. Socialist. Fascist. American. Parliamentarian. Bolshevist. Anarchosyndicalist. Free citizen. If you are someone’s property, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, because you don’t get to say who you are.

You are the property of the State.

Leave a Reply