Editorial
On "I earned it, it's mine!"
In my political circles quite a few people, both now and in the past, defend the right to private property, to individual ownership, based on the idea that whatever one earns – or creates, or makes, or produces – surely is one's own property and others have no right to it. And up to a point this carries conviction but it doesn't at all go far enough. There is a lot that one owns that one hadn't earned, made, created, produced or the like. It still is one's private property and no one is authorized to take it from one.
Let's start with the simple cases. How about one's second eye that another may well have great use for? Or one's second kidney? Or indeed one's heart if one is some kind of no good, lazy loafer and another who's an ambitious genius with noble aspirations to save the world could make good use of? Then what about what one was given as a gift or has inherited? Not always earned at all! Or what about what one has found, free and clear?
There are quite a few political philosophers and theorists, even moralists, whose views imply that if you didn't earn it, others are entirely free to take it from you. And if what you own is not being put to proper use, then, too, it can be confiscated by the authorities and transferred to someone who is deemed to make wiser use of it. The famous City of New London, CT v. Kelo U.S. Supreme Court case (of July 2005) whereby a bunch of city bureaucrats confiscated private property from citizens and gave it to others was decided on such spurious grounds.
Now, to start with, nothing at all follows about other people having the authority to take from one something one hasn't come by through hard work, through having earned or produced or made it all. It is a complete non-sequitor. Yes, one way to come to own something is by having produced or earned it but there are others, including having been born with it, having it as part of one's very identity as the human individual who one happens to be, or having been given it. That's enough. Others just have no warrant for butting in, however great their goals, be it the will of the people or of wise leaders or anything like that.
Private property rights flow from one's having an unalienable right to one's life, a life that is one's own and no one else's, not the family's, not the tribe's, not the clan's, nor of the nation or community or some other group of other people who already own exactly what they have a right to, namely, their own lives.
So having come by something without having stolen or extorted it from someone is plenty or warrant for owning it. And then, of course, if one has put one's mind to making good use of something no one else owns, that is also an excellent reason to be deemed its owner.
All this propaganda in favor of collective, public or community ownership is, in fact, mostly a ruse by various private individuals who want to confiscate the property of other private individuals under some kind of guise that they represent the public or the general will or some fathom thing like that. No, those groups are no more than a gang of other people who want what doesn't belong to them and wish to sell the idea through the myth of the superior importance of the greater numbers. But there's no substance to it – millions of people can all be plain thieves, lead by hoodlums who just want to come by stuff by violent means.
The right to private property applies not only to owning what one has created – although few of us create something entirely anew, from scratch – but also to what emanates from us, from who we are. So if by total accident I am a good-looking bloke and can cash in on it by getting a paid gig on the cover of GQ, nobody is justified robbing me of my proceeds, not my neighbor, not the government, no one.
Some defenders of our private property rights are tempted to link ownership rights to some kind of merit but that's a trap, for we are not always the owners of things, including our lives and limbs, as a matter of merit. It is still who we are, sovereign individuals, and what we own and others better keep off.
Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback


Posted by Ingo Bischoff on 07/06/10 11:41 AM
By Anglo-Saxon law, land can only be owned by a "sovereign". It can only be acquired by transactions between sovereigns or by conquest.
To evaluate the "Kelo" case, it must be understood that the sovereign States within the U.S. hold "allodial" or unassaible title to the land within their borders. With allodial title comes the right to "entry onto the land" (police power), the right to "tax" (land values only), the right of "eminent domain" (takings of lands under fee simple title necessary for superior public good) and the right of escheat (reclaiming of lands with abandoned fee simple titles).
In the "Kelo" case, local jurisdiction excercised the "right of eminent domain". The case should have been dismissed, on the ground that the City of New London had no jurisdiction. The City of London acquired taxing powers from the State of Connecticut, but it did not acquire allodial or absolute title over the Kelo land. The Kelo land was held by exclusive "fee simple title", and as long as Kelo complied with the provisions of the fee simple title, he had the right to use the land. Eminent domain takings could only have been approved by the sovereign, the State of Connecticut.
It is fallacious to call "land" private property. It is not. By nature, humans are condemned to exist on the land, and therefore the land is the birth right of all the people. Wealth created from the "land" by application of labor does create an absolute title in wealth, and the arguments made by Dr. Machan apply to wealth.
Posted by Jacob on 07/05/10 03:11 AM
Unless a society universally adheres to some unbiased reference, e.g. the Bible, private property simply does not exist a priori. Private property is an adopted fiction based upon the commonly accepted and enforced norms of society.
The watch on your wrist, for instance, is your private property only to the extent that the greater society in which you live agrees (for whatever reasons it adheres) that it is yours, notwithstanding what you may think otherwise.
If a greater society operates on the assumption that wristwatches are fair game for the taking, then your notion of private property to the contrary is worthless. Therein lies the dilemma of society and its wealth: unrelenting struggle among competing opinions regarding its underlying ownership and control. Best of luck untangling the societal knot.
![]() |
Posted by Wayne on 07/04/10 06:46 PM
Dr. Machan has used logic to confront the fraud of conditional sovereignty
To allow the concept of "I earned it" is indeed a trap, for that implies that anything not directly earned is the property of someone or something other than one's own self
For example, you did not earn your life at birth!
By the I earned it test, you are the property of someone/something else
Think of the insanity of military conscription as a point for discussion.
Where does the state get the authority to send a person into harm's way?
And where does the state get the authority to claim any of your income, even though you actually directly earned it?
By what right is this done?
By the right of the murderous thugs to destroy you if you do not comply!
This is the real nature of these systems
And we owe Dr. Machan a thank you for putting a hole in their sophist arguments!
Posted by Victor Barney on 07/04/10 12:45 PM
Posted by ConfederateH on 07/03/10 05:32 PM
My question to you, Machan, is what is an appropriate level of taxation and how should that be determined?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Good question. We will forward your query.
![]() |
Posted by William3 on 07/03/10 05:20 PM
But how do we move from here to a world with fewer parasites and more producers, and hopefully less anger?
Firstly, I try to respect everyone as a person, not an objectified someone. Secondly, I make every effort to hold myself and others accountable for the effects I or they cause in the world. Thirdly, I constantly search for ways to transform myself into the most productive, caring person I can be. Doing so, I am able to be an example for others.
My method may not work for everyone. But change is slow, and I believe it must begin with myself.
Posted by Keith Goodenough on 07/03/10 04:29 PM
Sorry you're so embittered by a mere fact of life. Wealth will always gravitate to a small proportion of the population, until individually they have children who think that money exists merely as a means of indirect exchange. Stalin, no doubt a favorite of yours, died a very rich man.
Posted by Crockett Almanac on 07/03/10 01:08 PM
Thank you for another fine essay. Must say you've expanded my understanding of the foundations of property rights.
Tom Rogers,
Don't blame the current disparity between the richest people and the middle and lower classes on property rights, blame it on the corporatist system we now enjoy which subverts property rights and forces the small and weak to give up their civil and property rights to support those who are "too big to fail."
Mark,
The dropped wallet belongs to the person who dropped it. The man who sees him drop it has a choice to either return the wallet to the dropper, or to keep the wallet and say nothing or to ignore the situation completely.
The person who sees the second man pick up the dropped wallet has the opportunity to either alert the finder that the wallet belongs to the first man, or to alert the first man that the second man has his wallet, or to ask the man who picked up the wallet for a payment for silence in the matter or he could ignore the situation completely.
If the man who dropped the wallet becomes aware that the second man has his wallet but will not return it, he has a right to use proportional force to obtain the return of his property. Because the second man did not use force to obtain the wallet but simply picked it up off the street no physical violence can be used against him. The man who lost his wallet can try to negotiate the return of the wallet including the use of tactics such as shaming the finder into returning the wallet. Some form of mutually agreeable method of adjudication is another possible path to a remedy. The first man can also take greater precautions not to drop his wallet on future occasions.
The actions which the dropper, finder and witness undertake will be peculiar to their individual natures and situations. Such actions, when viewed in concert with numerous other independent actions is called "life."
It's a good thing.
Posted by Tom on 07/03/10 12:59 PM
Hence, in the history of the Israelite nation, the sin of Achan was dealt with so severely when the first confrontation west of the Jordan occurred.
Posted by Jean VanBael on 07/03/10 09:58 AM
"They are asking people to run a local group that meets every tuesday. The agenda for the meeting is fixed and on their website. Each week the group reviews one of the 14 things the congress deemed unconstitutional and ranks options that the 5% plan to do to attack that unconstitutional action. Then pass up the results to the county, state, country groups each week and report the results the following week. In the meantime, they are getting more and more signatures of people who would be willing to stop paying taxes." This one sounds like a real plan to me!
Posted by Mark on 07/03/10 09:58 AM
![]() |
Posted by Adam on 07/03/10 08:11 AM
I am in agreement with you as regards to the logic of private property rights (excluding land).
As regards "It's mine!", I have a simple question... How many of your academic employments are partly subsidized by the State?
I do not presume to know the answer to this question, but I think it is safe to say that your free-market philosophical contributions to a free-market publication are beyond reproach.
Adam
Posted by Rom on 07/03/10 08:03 AM
No problem with the above, however the problems occur when laws are secularized or de-linked to revealed religious law. I am aware that Christian laws were Romanized and problematic to start with, but when a group of individuals really accept that everything is created by a Creator God, then their private property becomes subject to that Gods law, He, It or She is the Real Owner and human owners cannot do whatever they please. The ruler monarch is the owner who allows his people to use the land always making sure it never becomes concentrated in few hands and they also make sure wealth circulates through society by preventing certain usury practices.
When this has strong roots in any society there will be little corruption in trade and commerce. So if a small class of people want to gain unfair advantage they will try to undermine the religious laws and replace them with their own secular laws.
Posted by Bryan on 07/03/10 07:57 AM
Posted by Sherry Mann on 07/03/10 07:09 AM
Click to view link
Posted by Tom Rogers on 07/03/10 06:47 AM
Looks like it's working out just great, huh?
Posted by Lee on 07/03/10 06:32 AM
We have accepted this controlled insanity by our government and states out of a constant state of fear of a reprisal for non compliance. This state of fear, which has been programmed into us from birth from every angle they can think of. Rare has been the breed of human being who can stand against them and win. The laws being that only the well connected elite have a chance in a fight and the power elite are pretty much immune to these burdens which the rest of us bear, the yoke of compliance or else.
When it comes to waste, they are number one, all that has to be done, is raise another tax or create another batch of fiat cash which lowers the value of the existing pile. In our society, you either continue to pay, become a criminal or play their game so well they let you in the club, which has different levels with the power elite being at the top. We have been taken over by corruption at every turn towards this eventual melt down, the only thing left is to unite with the same type of vigor you would use to exterminate a coach roach infested house.
The question I put to you, do you understand the meaning, "give me liberty or give me death". If you do, are you ready? Are you? If not when will you be, in a line by Bob Dylan, "If you got nothin, you got nothin to lose". As long as they can keep those with nothin locked up, neutralized, entertained or confused in any fashion and unable to unite as one humungous block of a mass of people, they can maintain control. As long as your piece of the pie or crumbs of the pie are enough to survive, will you sit idly by and let the obvious happen?

l 




