The Philosophy of Ownership

It is often presumed that it is force and force alone that assures against trespass of property. This may have been true to some degree in earliest times. But as properties multiplied, opportunity for theft far exceeded the ability of physical defenders, both in time and numbers. Non-trespass of private property became one of the earliest taboos, substituted for still earlier taboos against tribal trespass. Here is the early root of the Golden Rule, and even of the late development of the Decalogue. Moral behavior was in essence the recognition of another’s ownership over a given property whether the owner is present or absent. It was the kind of behavior one hoped to obtain from others. Thus, in one of the first quid pro quo concepts, the individual refrained from trespass with the unspoken assurance that if he so refrained, others would similarly restrain themselves.

Today, most men believe that the state is absolutely necessary to protect property and property owners and that man must rely upon the state for this service. Curiously, classic economists and modern Keynesians, as well as other, more avant-garde socialists, agree here.

So widespread is this belief that it is common to hear it said that the traditional usefulness of the state, or the justification for the existence of the state, lies in this area exclusively. The state is to limit itself, or by some process is to be limited, to the function of protecting life and property. Beyond that, it is not to venture. Yet, based upon this concept, applications of this limited function have led us repeatedly into what could now be called the “modern state,” with its enormous accounting and record-keeping apparatus, its constant erosion of the privacy of men, and the launching and conducting of modern warfare. All of these functions are nothing more nor less than the protective function over property.

The traditional view of the classicists is that if they have the power of the state at their disposal, they will use the state for the good of the economy, inhibiting aggressive selling and discriminatory price fixing, and maintaining a police force which will maximize protection for property owners, big and little.

The views of the socialists vary according to the particular complexion of the socialist theory being offered. Some socialists, including both the anarchist and the communist branches, see the state as a danger, either to be eliminated outright since its retention protects property (the anarchist view), or to be eliminated ultimately, after the state has been employed to “wrest by degrees” all property from the productive property owners. (After everything is expropriated, theoretically there will be no further requirement for an agency of expropriation; but with the long-heralded dictatorship of the proletariat there will of necessity be a central authority empowered to control and manage production and distribution.)

Socialists believe that only socialists are sensitive to the wants of the poor and only they will employ state power toward the elimination of poverty and the control of greed.

In this respect, both classic economists and socialists seek much the same solution from much the same base. Though they differ as to who should own property, both view the state as an essential to the ownership and protection of property. Both believe that conditions of benefit will be maximized if THEY are in charge. Conditions of benefit will be maximized, according to the classicists, if the economy is protected and if greed is controlled by laws which tend to encourage competition and to discourage unfair and inhibitory practices, including criminal actions. Socialists, meanwhile, contend that conditions of benefit will be maximized when distribution of goods on the basis of need is encouraged, rather than the production of goods for profit. The anarchists, who are the most independent of the socialists, contend that if they have their way, the state will vanish and with it all ability of anyone to protect his property; thus property ownership as such, except in rather meager quantities, will vanish. But fundamental to both socialist and classical positions is the assumption that the state is the instrument, and the only instrument, that provides protection of property.

What is important is the truth. And curiously, both classicists and socialists of various shades of view have failed to grasp the significance of the fact that property ownership was not an invention of the state but, rather, that the state was an invention of property owners. Ownership of property preceded the erection of states and would continue if the state were to disappear. Actually, the private ownership of property arose in tribal economies and was originally protected by taboo and primitive religious ritual. Sir Henry Maine observes:

When a king decided a dispute by a sentence, the judgment was assumed to be the result of direct inspiration. The divine agent, suggesting judicial awards to kings or to gods, the greatest of kings, was themis. The peculiarity of the conception is brought out by the use of the plural. Themistes, themises, the plural of themis, are the awards themselves, divinely dictated to the judge. Kings are spoken of as if they had a store of “themistes” ready to hand for use; but it must be distinctly understood that they are not laws, but judgments. . . .1 (Emphasis added.)

De Coulanges insists:

In the greater number of primitive societies the right of property was established by religion. . . .The first religion that exercised its empire on their minds was also the one that established the right of property among them. . . .Religion, and now laws, first guaranteed the right of property.2

Nor are we left with nothing but earlier authorities on which to base this contention. Modern anthropology, archeology, and other researchers in the field have tended to show that instruction given to children, either under tribal custom or under religious stimulus, resulted in respect for property and the self-control necessary for private ownership of property to endure.

What is not easily grasped is the fact that ownership of property and its retention in private hands are dependent upon understanding and belief, and not upon force. The only real protection we have arises from the unwillingness of individuals to commit trespass, and not upon the willingness of certain men, hired as a constabulary, to pursue those who have violated property rights, in order to bring restitution or to punish the offenders, or both.

At the core of modern thinking is the assumption that property cannot be protected and that the state must act after the fact in bringing a belated balance after criminal violation. When there is little property, such as in poor or primitive societies, discovery and punishment of thieves and recovery of goods are possible. As modern industrial production multiplies goods and properties in ownership, and as the unique character of various items in ownership is replaced by mass production, recovery and retribution become increasingly cumbersome and costly, and less feasible. Indeed, with increasing populations complicating procedures, police are increasingly unable to solve crimes. Criminals can disappear in crowds and the goods they confiscate can be just as easily hidden.

In the modern world, there exist so many kinds of property and so many units of ownership that protection by force of all these items is out of the question. Prof. Oscar Cooley grasped this fact when he stated: “The notion that, without a policeman standing by, the property right would be ignored and flouted is quite unwarranted. Self-interest impels people to respect the property right of others so that their own will be respected. It is this practical application of the Golden Rule, not state threats, that largely makes private property possible today.”3

All modern war is predicated upon retributory functions of the state in seeking to create “justice” after the supposition of injustice. Actions of police in pursuing criminals essentially operate from the same principle of retaliation.

When states base their functional necessity upon retributive justice, individual members of society become nothing more than pawns in the game. That they are to be trespassed and victimized is assumed. But this is to set up individuals as units of possible sacrifice.

Further, taxation is instituted to provide for retribution in the event a trespass occurs. Taxation, by definition, is nothing more than legalized theft. And here is the illogical practice of installing and sanctifying a general practice of theft on an ever-grander scale for the alleged purpose of punishing illegal theft should it occur.

What has been overlooked is the enormous susceptibility of mankind to correct understanding concerning property. Yet it is as simple to instruct children and adults in the inviolability of property ownership as it is to instruct them in the sacredness of Baal, Buddha, Vishnu, or any other religious way-shower. And people who have been thoroughly and correctly trained simply will not become thieves. The problem is an educational and not a retaliatory problem. Given a community in which trespass will not occur because of prior conditioning and training, such a community will require little or no policing on any retributory basis.

Fear of punishment and the force embodied in police powers may inhibit a few criminals and their actions. But it is increasingly apparent that reliance upon the state in these affairs leads into as many new problems as it solves.

A new force is now emerging to challenge the role of the state in the hands either of classic liberals or of modern socialist liberals of any stripe. This force is clearer perception and better education along lines which will insure that future generations understand the significance of private ownership of property. New schools will have to be formed which provide this training. Such institutions must arise out from under state control, state sponsorship, or even state assistance, to do the job.

________________

4H. S. Maine, Ancient Law (Boston: Beacon Press paperback, 1963), p 4.

5Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City (Anchor Books edit.; New York: Doubleday and Co. [original edit. 1864]), pp. 66-67.

6Oscar W. Cooley, “What Is Property?” Rampart Journal, Vol. I (1965), No. 4, 28.

• 1H. S. Maine, Ancient Law (Boston: Beacon Press paperback, 1963), p 4.
• 2Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City (Anchor Books edit.; New York: Doubleday and Co. [original edit. 1864]), pp. 66-67.
• 3Oscar W. Cooley, “What Is Property?” Rampart Journal, Vol. I (1965), No. 4, 28.
• 4When a king decided a dispute by a sentence, the judgment was assumed to be the result of direct inspiration. The divine agent, suggesting judicial awards to kings or to gods, the greatest of kings, was themis. The peculiarity of the conception is brought out by the use of the plural. Themistes, themises, the plural of themis, are the awards themselves, divinely dictated to the judge. Kings are spoken of as if they had a store of “themistes” ready to hand for use; but it must be distinctly understood that they are not laws, but judgments. . . . (Emphasis added.)
• 5In the greater number of primitive societies the right of property was established by religion. . . .The first religion that exercised its empire on their minds was also the one that established the right of property among them. . . .Religion, and now laws, first guaranteed the right of property.
• 6In the modern world, there exist so many kinds of property and so many units of ownership that protection by force of all these items is out of the question. Prof. Oscar Cooley grasped this fact when he stated: “The notion that, without a policeman standing by, the property right would be ignored and flouted is quite unwarranted. Self-interest impels people to respect the property right of others so that their own will be respected. It is this practical application of the Golden Rule, not state threats, that largely makes private property possible today.”