There is a false and mistaken division between private and public property in the United States today. There is also a lack of respect for personal property. This false division and lack of respect leads to a flaw in society. A small number of self interested individuals make a lot of decisions for a large number of individuals about what is best for everyone. By understanding (and perhaps abolishing) the "public versus private" distinction, we can start down a path of reinventing our society and decision making to benefit all persons.
My research indicates that laws and governments - states - spend a lot of time "protecting" private property. In many cases or places, this is defined by its juxtaposition to "public property". In this definition, public property is that which is owned by the state, and private property is everything else.
Following these definitions, the Complaints of the Declaration of Independence and the protections of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution look as if they are meant to keep the state from "stealing" someone's property. Indeed, that is a true statement. However, it is far from the whole story.
In thinking about property (personal, private or public), we need to start earlier and from a different perspective. To a large extent, prior to the Magna Carta all property was owned by the king. I recognize this is a gross exaggeration and that there are numerous examples where this was not true. However, this is a useful place to start. The Magna Carta essentially granted rights, or "property", as that term can be loosely used away from the king, while retaining certain rights, or "property" in the king.
Now, there is an interesting characteristic of property that everyone knows and everyone forgets. Property owns you. While you "own" something, you always have some sort of obligation, whether it be a tax, maintenance or simply finding a place to store the property. And, of course, you always have the risk of loss. After you give property away, of course, you no longer own it. So the peculiar thing is that the only time you actually exercise all the rights of property that you may have is at the particular time you give away those rights.
That bears repeating: only at the time someone actually disposes of their property is that person taking complete control and exercising all the property rights they own.
Taken one logical step further, the best of all possible worlds would be to give away the (property) rights, while still maintaining the ability to direct the use and management of the (property) rights. The king knew this when he put his seal on the Magna Carta. The Barons that forced the Magna Carta did not get freedom from the king. The state knows this when it allows you to "keep" your property free from taking for public use without just compensation. On a personal level, the parent who "gives" a car to their child to drive to and from school and work, and nowhere else, practices the same type of control.
So let's use this concept and redefine public property. Public property is not just the property "owned" by the state. It is the whole of the rights that the public has. This includes positive rights such as traditional deeded ownership of land, as well as negative rights, such as the right to zone, or set a speed limit. Let's also do away with the idea of the state "owning" these rights. While modern law seems to treat that as true, I am proposing that is the wrong way of looking at things.
The King gave way to Parliament in England. However, in the United States the King gave way to the people. In fact, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the rights have been protected by the Commonwealth as if in Public Trust. The Pennsylvania Constitution essentially gives the people rights which - most rightfully - should be public property.
So then, private property is everything not owned by the people, right? One certainly can make that distinction logically. However, there is another more fundamental distinction at play. Since so many property rights are subject to so many rights of the public, is there not a third, more inalienable property right? Did the Declaration of Independence not indicate there were inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Can someone take your intellectual property? You can give it, perhaps without protection, but can they actually take it?
My suggestion is that there are certain personal property rights which are inviolate. Nor should these be limited to your thoughts. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to mind. The clothes on your back should be your personal property, subject to no one else's right to remove them. Of course, the line gets blurred, but generally the fruits of your labor should be yours. You create it, you keep it or dispose of it.
However, all other property, including the money received if disposing of personal property, and no matter whether "private" or "public", is simply property. Again, all other property, whether "private" or "public" is simply property.
It is neither good, nor evil. One property right is limited by another. In a society, one in which presumably there is a social compact, the concept of correlative rights allows for seemingly incongruous positions on property. Taxes are an example of incongruous positions. If your personal property was inviolate, and you sell it, why wouldn't the income be inviolate. This is because taxes are simply a method of aggregating capital that presumably the public has agreed upon
(this is another subject, for another day, but remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing).
So the important thing is not what kind of property right we have. The important thing is what we as a society choose to do with these rights. Right now, much wealth (a form of property) is concentrated in a few holders. This is not necessarily bad. A concentration of wealth allows for investment. What is dangerous is how the decision is made how that wealth should be exercised. In other words, how and when will it be given away? To who? What restrictions will be placed on how that wealth is used? As a society, we should be wary of allowing a small group of persons to make those decisions. Likewise, we still have the same tensions as the founding fathers regarding the tyranny of the majority. More recently, we need to be concerned about the tyranny of what is loosely termed special interests.
While I cannot answer specifics as to ownership or wealth transfer or regulations and rules on the use of property (who am I to impose this order unilaterally anyway), I do suggest that people stop thinking in terms of public versus private (and left versus right). We need to begin to think of "us" and what is best for ourselves and our children. It is not best for a small number of private interests to make public decisions. It is not best for the public to abdicate their public responsibility and allow a small minority of persons to hold capital with little, if any, accountability to the public.
Talk with people. Talk with your family. Talk with your friends. Talk with those who disagree with you. What kind of social conscience do we all agree a large company like Walmart should have in return for the public allowing them to exist and concentrate wealth in a small number of people? What are we willing to do to achieve this? Start first by changing your own thoughts and actions, and then let's change those of others. In everything we do, think of what it is we want in the world and cause it to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment