Are Those Your Shoes?

Take a moment and look down at your feet. If you are wearing shoes, I have a question for you; are those your shoes?  Let's make it easier and specify that you are wearing your favorite pair of shoes that you bought at the shoe store with money you were paid for your work at the widget factory. I will ask again, are those really your shoes?

 

What about the couch you are sitting on in your living room or the pots and pans you used to cook dinner?  Many people still owe money on their car or house but let's say after many years of hard labor at that widget factory you pay off your mortgage and have a party to burn that mortgage in the fire pit in the back yard, right in the middle of all that green grass in your 150 by 200 ft. lot?  Is it really your lot?

 

The question may sound silly but the answer will form one of the pillars of your core philosophy. The question of whether or not people can own private property has been debated for centuries. Many people today reject the notion that you can truly own things. 

 

History is largely filled with Kings and serfdom. Generally the King owned everything in the kingdom, and was simply magnanimous enough to allow the little people to use that which was rightly his. Decisions about who would control land or occupy castles were based on either swords or bloodlines. 

 

The philosophers of the 1700's and 1800's offered new insights on an old question. The United States was founded on a firm foundation of respect for personal property rights. We sometimes take for granted that what is ours is ours, from the shoes on our feet to the grass in our back yard. But not everyone agrees. 

 

Marx, for example, did not agree.  And even American philosophers such as Thoreau argued against the idea of absolute property rights. The communist and socialist ideas of egalitarianism are incompatible with the idea of one man owning more shoes or land than he actually needs while others go shoeless, regardless of his productivity at the widget factory.

 

The American system was based on the concept that each man was entitled to whatever he could produce and trade for in a free market system. More productive people making more desirable widgets will clearly end up with more property; and will clearly run afoul of the egalitarian crowd, who pine for a system of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

 

The question boils down to how society should decide who gets to control or "own" property. The free market system relies on market forces to determine the value of each person's contribution and also the value or "price" of everything from shoes to automobiles. In the past these decisions were made by kings or nobles or emperors. Some today would have committees or bureaucrats or majorities decide. Make no mistake, with the ability to decide who gets what comes great power. And with power comes corruption. 

 

When government interferes with free markets to decide winners and losers it is corrupt. Cronies will always hang around government, asking for just such favors. Corporate "monarchs" (think Rockefeller and Carnegie) will also use their influence to curry favor and extend their power. 

 

And so, how should we decide?  Shall it be up to kings or committees or bureaucrats or politicians, or should we allow individuals and free markets to determine the value of labor and goods?  Should citizens truly own their property, or should it somehow be "community" property, subject to redistribution by the next king or power broker to come along?

 

I believe in property rights, and free markets. I believe government exists to maintain a fair and free market system, and to enforce legal contracts and settle disputes according to established law.  I do not believe government should decide who gets to own what, or how much people are paid or the price of the goods that they buy.  These decisions should be made by the millions of individuals who work and hire and buy and sell and trade. 

 

I do believe in charity.  I believe individuals should help those less fortunate.  Most faiths and philosophies encourage people to give and to help others, and most people are more than willing to do just that.  But those are and should be individual choices.  Charity and compassion come from the love and integrity of individuals doing the right thing, not at the point of a gun.  Individuals can look at the resources they have available and see the specific needs of their neighbors and determine the most effective way of helping them.

 

There is no need for a third party to act as a “power broker” to collect property from some people and redistribute it to others.  We are all aware of scammers and false charities that exist merely to enrich themselves and who do very little for the poor.  Just because someone has a government title does not mean that they are immune from being a charlatan.  One does not need to steal actual money to profit from being the one distributing the goodies.  The power to reward some and punish others is often the only reward they need.

 

There is a not-so-subtle effort underway to convince us that we have no absolute right to our property.  They are persistent and the attack on private property rights comes on many different levels.  They appeal to a sense of guilt by calling people greedy.  They appeal to a sense of fairness and equality by pointing to unequal outcomes.  If these were appeals to encourage people to engage in individual acts of charity, that would be one thing.  But they are trying to convince you that your property is not truly yours; it belongs to the collective, and they will be the ones to redistribute it.

 

The President would have you believe "you didn't build that".  He and others would have you believe that fairness requires that property be redistributed and that property rights be conditional. Redistribution will be overseen by a mountain of special interests, advocating for their fair share, and arguing the relative importance of their group, relative to others.

 

The issue is far from hypothetical. Ever wonder why the tax code is so complex?  Why loopholes and subsidies and exemptions let some off the hook while penalizing others?  Ever wonder why the Federal Reserve has the power to print money out of thin air but refuses to be audited?  Ever wonder about the myriad of seemingly nonsensical regulations passed each year?

 

Influence peddling is sadly the chief occupation of government. There is no money in calling a fair game. They do not have to come and take your house. They control the rate of inflation and the value of the dollar and property taxes and income taxes and the regulations regarding the use of your lot. 

 

The free market is not perfect, but it lets everyone vote with their hard earned dollars to decide the value of goods and services. It is better than kings and dictators, better than ‘might makes right’, and infinitely preferable to politicians and committees. 

 

Without private property rights, theft and confiscation have no meaning.  There is no reason to be concerned with how high taxes are, because the money is not really yours anyway.  People are just beggars, waiting to receive their ration from their masters, and awaiting their orders regarding how hard and how long they need to work.  Or begging and bargaining with those same masters for a lighter load or larger ration and hoping to find favor with the power brokers, whether in the form of a King or committee or a vote of the majority.

 

No thanks.  I prefer freedom and individual responsibility and competition and decisions made by individuals in a free market.  I prefer individual ownership of private property.

 

Those are your shoes.  That is your couch, and that is your house and lot. You earned them fair and square. We need to reduce the size and scope and influence of government, and work to level the playing field, rather than evening the score.