Those who are in the news for pilfering the shuttle debris that rained down on Texas and Louisiana earlier are getting a bad rap, writes Christopher Westley. While the government can retrieve shuttle remains on public lands in any way it sees fit, it cannot violate the rights of property owners simply because they were unfortunate enough to wake up one morning and find government property on their land.
Bryant Park is managed, policed and run by a private corporation, one of the largest experiments of its kind in the nation. A corporation saved this historic park from the depths of degradation. It brought in commerce, which was happy to pay large rents to the corporation because the park has become an urban oasis.
"Sustainability" is the doomsters' rallying cry. The slogan is clever. It sparks apocalyptic urgency. But clever slogans and vivid imagery are no substitute for clear thinking about the place of private property in environmental concerns.
The Myth of Ownership stands out from most works of analytic philosophy. Usually, works by eminent philosophers cannot easily be dismissed. You may, for example, disagree with Rawls’s A Theory of Justice,
What's the difference between the cultures of the private sector and the public sector? Consider the difference between Arthur Andersen, which has no future, and the U.S. Forest Service, which will live forever. The answer can be traced to property rights, and it explains why market outcomes are always held to a much higher standard than public-sector outcomes.
According to Ludwig von Mises, socialism was doomed to failure because the lack of private property, plus the absence of a profit and loss system, meant that accurate economic calculation would be impossible in those regimes. Instead of order, there would be chaos--something that was borne out time and again as we witnessed the poor performances of socialist economies.
One major reason people are not loyal to the principle of the right to private property is that they have a misconception of its main function. Many think only the wealthy benefit from it. And even if they do not have anything against being rich, they do have something against unfair legal advantages for those who are.
While it is morally reprehensible to hate, in a true free market the freedom of citizens to associate with whom they wish must be upheld and private property rights must be enforced. There should be neither forced association nor forced disassociation. This is the social foundation of the free-market economy.
Can there be a right to freedom of speech without that right being firmly based on property rights?
