Posted on 06/26/2002 10:33:28 AM PDT by Mugwumps
I shock many students on the first day of my Property classes by defining property ownership in terms of control: whoever gets to make decisions about an item of property is the effective owner, regardless of what legal definitions may have to say about title. I then propose the following application of a property principle (which I ask them only to understand, not necessarily to agree with): "based upon what I have just stated, I may do whatever I want with my property, without any restrictions or limitations whatsoever. If I may not do so, then someone else – the one restricting my usage – is the owner." There is a good deal of uneasiness in the classroom, with students wanting to amend my proposition by saying "as long as you don’t harm another." I respond, "I will accept no such qualifications to my principle: if I am the owner of something, I get to decide what I shall do with my property!"
"Perhaps the following hypothetical will help you," I explain. I proceed to hold up an eraser, and tell them: "imagine this is my brick. Imagine, further, that you have a lovely plate glass window in your house, and that I would like to throw my brick through your window. Based upon the principle I have just enunciated, am I entitled to do so?"
Many of the students begin to give in, saying "yeah, I guess so." But eventually, there will be one or two who will catch on and reply: "you only said that you could do with your property as you saw fit, and my window is not your property!" I go on to explain how the property boundary defines the range of my authority: I may break my own window with the brick – or hit myself over the head with it, if I choose – but I may not, consistent with a property principle, intrude upon your property.
At this point, my students are prepared to consider the broader social implications of "property." I tell them that this is not a course about "things," but about the relationships of people to one another concerning the question: who gets to make decisions about what?, a question so ably put by the late Robert LeFevre. "Who gets to make decisions about the lives and other property interests of people? Will individuals do this for themselves, or will others exercise such authority over them? In other words," I go on, "this is a course in the social application of metaphysics."
In time, most of my students begin to gain an understanding that individual liberty and the private ownership of property are synonymous concepts. To enjoy liberty is to exercise unrestricted authority over not only your life, but over those extensions of your life that we have come to regard as property. Because every living being must occupy space and be able to consume external sources of energy in order to continue existing, the property question goes to the very essence of life itself.
And so, we return to the question asked by this article: are there limits to your liberty? If you have learned to accept the necessity for leashes and leg-chains on human nature, you will probably regard an affirmative response as a self-evident proposition. But if you do answer "yes," then who will define those limitations? Do you not see that whoever you acknowledge as the definer of your liberties can set them as narrowly or as broadly as they choose, restricted only by a fear of your possible resistance? Is it not also evident that, by presuming to direct the range of your behavior, they have set themselves up as the masters of your life?
What can be said of the comparative states of mind of those who insist upon their unrestricted liberty, and those who are prepared to accept restrictions that others – particularly the state – have placed upon that liberty? The former will vigorously oppose such intrusions, asserting a claim to immunity from trespass as the basis for their insistence. There is, within such persons, a kind of spiritual imperative that will not allow for the subjugation of those autonomous qualities that give expression to all of life.
On the other hand, for those who have accepted state limitations upon their liberties, their response to further restrictions will amount to little more than a plea for indulgences. For so long has their systematic conditioning alienated them from the life spirit that, like trained animals, their aspirations reach no further than to be well fed, well cared for, and made secure from fears.
The conflict-ridden nature of modern society is largely accounted for by the kind of thinking which, in F.A. Hayek’s words, amounts to a "fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces." Unable to see, in a system of privately owned property, the informal processes by which the exercise of our liberties are self-limiting (i.e., the range of what you or I may properly do is constrained to the boundaries of what each of us owns), many resort to the state to define the scope of liberty. It is because of the wholesale abandonment of the property principle that we now experience, in statism, what Thomas Hobbes saw in a "state of nature," namely, a "condition of war of every one against every one," and for which he envisioned the state as a solution!
Since Hobbes, we have had three and a half centuries of experience with statism from which to judge the consequences of restricting the liberties of free men and women. Given the 200 million humans killed by wars and genocidal practices in the 20th century alone, the depressions and other economic dislocations caused by state intrusion into the marketplace, and the countless number of intergroup conflicts and bloodbaths perpetrated all over the globe, it is not individual liberty that ought to be on the defensive, but the state! It is state operatives – systematically regulating and despoiling our property interests – who are greater threats to our well-being than the occasional muggers.
But to fully appreciate how privately owned property and individual liberty can generate order in our world, we must be prepared to accept the property principle as an unqualified social system. It is meaningless to assert "I believe in privately owned property as long as the owner behaves as I want him to." To take such a position is, again, to have external authorities defining the range of our liberty. Voltaire’s classic statement ("I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it") has long been insisted upon by intellectuals, who find it useful for preserving the liberties in which they are interested. But what if we were to extend the range of this proposition to human action in general? What if we substituted the word "do" for "say" in this quotation, remembering that the "doing" is confined to one’s property interests?
A test of our commitment to liberty is found in our willingness to respect the authority of each of our neighbors to have unrestricted power over their individual lives and property. This is often difficult for us to do, particularly when we see others engaging in conduct that greatly offends our tastes and sensibilities. Let us see how far this respect for the liberty of others will take us.
Because the property principle, by definition, precludes a person from trespassing upon the life or property interests of another, victimizing crimes – all of which are property trespasses – are not defensible as exercises in liberty. The man who is beating up, murdering, or raping another person, is not doing with his life or property as he sees fit – just as in my brick/plate glass window example – but is violating the property interests of his victim. But what about practices that might be distasteful to us, but for which no property trespass is involved?
Let us take the example of a men’s club that chooses not to allow women as members. A sign appears at the entrance to this club expressing such a policy. A woman tries to join the club and is refused. Since no one has a property right entitling them to do business with an unwilling buyer or seller, would you defend the club’s lawful right to exclude this woman? I am not asking if you would approve of its decision, but whether you are prepared – for the protection of your own unfettered liberty – to support the club’s right to make such a decision? Do you understand that the unrestricted liberty to decide with whom to share – or exclude from – what is yours goes to the very essence of property ownership? From the same civilizing sentiments that allow you to respect the liberty of others to attend churches of which you might disapprove, can you acknowledge this organization’s rightful authority to engage in an act you might find offensive?
If you answer "no" to this question, you have surrendered as much authority over your life and property as others are prepared to persuade the state to exercise in furtherance of their interests or values. Today’s prohibition of private gender discrimination can become tomorrow’s mandate of segregated practices. You cannot place provisos, qualifications or riders on the property principle – no matter how narrowly defined or how fervently desired – without opening the door to anyone else to place their favored restrictions upon you.
Those who dislike such discriminatory practices are, of course, free to exercise their liberty by refusing to do business with this club or its members, and to try to persuade others to do likewise. But by calling upon the state to forcibly deprive the club of its authority to exclude whomever it chooses to exclude, we quickly descend to the kind of society we see all around us: a world of claimants upon the lives and property of others, and with no respect for the inviolability of either.
The idea of "limited liberty" is as self-contradictory as notions of limited pregnancies, squared circles, or dry rain. Liberty, like genuine love, is indivisible and unconditional, not subject to such qualifications as "provided that" or "as long as." For the same reason that conditional love is but a form of affection, conditional liberty is but a synonym for state-conferred privileges. Those who argue for liberty on such limited grounds are doing nothing more than pleading for an extended leg-chain!
June 25, 2002
Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com
Yeah, yeah, yeah, liberty, schmmiberdy, property rights mumbo jumbo, all you really want to do is stay home and smoke pot, we all know, you can't fool us. Now get back to work so you can pay your taxes so we can pay the cops to make sure you don't go aroung exercising any of dumb old rights you spout about. Now get!
Rights do not come from man, they come from the Creator. Liberty can only be equitably exercised when it is governed by morality exisitng in an individual's heart, which morality comes from the same place as the Rights themselves. The moral code governing the exercise of rights MUST be a free will choice.
John Adams summed it up best when he said the following.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 AddressA couple of other examples include:
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." - Samuel AdamsThese men knew human nature, the human heart and the intricacies of individual and group dynamics. With all else that has changed in the intervening years, these principles and truths have not changed, and neither have the applicability of their words and teachings."[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." Samuel Adams
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Patrick Henry
"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain blessings. Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far to forsake us in the midst of it. We may, now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path. " - George Washington
So, Are there limits to Liberty? If you want to remain free there are, but they have to be chosen by the individuals and reside in their hearts. Of course, when someone takes it upon themselves to violate the rights of another, then they have violated the moral code and subjected themselves to the right of self defense inherent in the rights of those others whom they have violated.
An article that posits that I cannot violate the rights of another without recognizing that this very principle is itself a restriction of personal liberty is inherently self-contradictory and meaningless. Any time you posit that someone has a particular right, you limit the liberty and freedom of others to act by forbidding them to violate that right. And since the professor implicitly accepts limits to his liberty when he pledges to respect the property rights of others, the debate shifts away from whether liberty is absolute, and instead becomes a debate about what the extent of one's liberty is. Which is precisely what he objects to, but it is an issue which is completely unavoidable once you accept that people have rights.
This article does a wonderful job of refuting itself. Odd that the professor has never found a student sharp enough to spot this basic self-contradiction...
Well said. I often think about what a losing proposition we have in trying to play cat and mouse with criminals of any sort. Yesterday on the radio I heard a citizen blaming crime on the police, because they were not 'getting all the crack off the streets'. Right. As though we can ever completely eliminate destructive behavior through more policing. Yet the power of one individual turning away from actively destroying our society and choosing to build - now...that is hopeful.
I found this article interesting in the professor's challenge to his students' minds. He is making them think about property rights and liberty. Would that all of our young people were challenged to think deeply about these principles. And I agree with you, and with our founders, about the source of our rights.
For example, according to this article, someone can move into the house next to mine and run an unmufflered dirt bike at wide open throttle, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. According to the author, this is permissible because the neighbor has an unlimited 'right' to enjoy his property irrespective of the fact that the neighbor is destroying my enjoyment of my property. Obviously, the 'right' of my neighbor is limited by my equivalent 'right'.
In addition, the author (in his typical 60's frenzy to proclaim his 'rights'), ignores the fact that 'rights' have associated responsibilities. In the pursuit of his 'rights' he must accept that he is responsible to ensure he does not infringe on the 'rights' of others.
Adults recognize that co-operation of free men leads to prosperity for all. Even the Founders of our Republic knew that to be true.
If you want unlimited 'rights' go move to an isolated, uninhabited island or asteroid. There you will be free to do whatever you want since your behavior will only affect you.
You will.
This may be simply the difference between legal and philosophic logic, but unless there are corresponding obligations accepted as an inseparable element of this and every other right, the right itself becomes meaningless.
Similarly, if you are the only inhabitant in the world, rights are also meaningless.
Clearly, those founders knew whereof they spoke ... and I believe they were inspired and guided by that same Providance whom they looked to as the source of their rights.
FRegards.
Agreed - great point. We save a lot of time by learning from the distilled convictions and writings of the founders who already wrestled to the point of blood over these concepts and principles.
Substitute "cigarette smoke" for "brick" on the part of the actor. Substitute clothing, car, curtains, carpets and lungs for the "plate glass window" owned by the other party. A certain group of people consistently insists on violating this principle concerning the boundary of private property rights. The consistent violation of other people's rights results in government creation of a boundary and a penalty for violation of that boundary.
Agreed that's exactly my point. Well stated.
Not only did they wrestle to the point of blood, but they came away victorious and fashioned something (with God's helpo IMHO) that has withstood the test of time, despite the best efforts of enemies internal and external to bring it to ruin. They are succeedding of late (the last few decades) like never before ... but I have faith that George Washington's words, as quoted above, will prove true.
I saw in Klamath Falls last year, and in many other places in the last five years, that they are proving true.
"Power is directly proportional to the number of people you can render simultaneously miserable."
The claim of unlimited freedom to do with his property anything he wants is wrong. He must also take into account his responsibility to his neighbor. The critical point of the irreparable association of rights and responsibilities is continually ignored by people like the author of this article.
If you claim rights then you must automatically assume their associated responsibilities. To do anything else will only result in a society where the rule of law is ignored and the law of the fang and claw assumes supremacy. In such a society (where people claim 'rights' but refuse responsibilities), only those who are strong enough to physically impose their 'rights' on everyone else will rule. The rest will be their slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.