On Property Rights

Posted by Michael at 2:48 pm on November 9, 2008 in Politics

I received an email this morning from a vendor with the following quote in their signature line:

“Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail”

I recognized the quote immediately. It is of course part of the eloquent argument that Lincoln used to justify the emancipation of slaves and the destruction of America’s most shameful institution. In the context of Lincoln’s usage it provides a clear moral compass and illuminates the inherent immorality of slavery. Unfortunately it’s a quote that’s frequently used but infrequently understood.

In the case of slavery the property rights cited, those of one person over another, are invalid. It is fundamental to the concept of human rights that no person should ever hold another in servitude. And the most fundamental property right is the ownership a person has of their own life and destiny. Hence the pursuit of liberty and prosperity that is intrinsic to our concept of a free society.

In a broader sense however it is essentially impossible for there to be a conflict between property rights and human rights since property rights are a human right. They are in fact the most fundamental of human rights from which all other rights in an open society flow. Most economists agree that the establishment and protection of property rights is vital to the development and sustainability of both a market economy and a free society.

Some people may extend that thought to the idea that taxation is immoral, but this of course ignores the Social Contract. We all accept certain reasonable limitations on our liberties as part of our membership in our collective society. The degree to which governance is needed is debatable, but outside of intellectually bankrupt anarchists no one is prepared to argue that the government has no place imposing taxation in order to fund some level of governance for the common good.

As with any restriction on human rights however I believe it is our responsibility to look upon it with a skeptical eye and only accept as much restriction as is absolutely necessary. Even before taking into account the costs of taxation and the benefits of reducing the tax burden on the economy.

Before taking the collective level of restriction into account I believe it’s necessary to look upon progressive tax rates with skepticism. If you accept the supposition that property rights are a human right, then we are currently employing a system that restricts a human right, in this case property rights, at different levels essentially by class. The irony of this is that this progressive restriction has been implemented with egalitarianism as its aim when I would think egalitarianism demands whatever restrictions we impose should be equal among all citizens.

Egalitarianism is after all the belief that all people should maintain equal political, social, economic and civil rights. And it is arguably the foundation of our democratic society.

It’s important to realize when I say that morally any restriction of property rights should fulfill the tenants of egalitarianism this does not mean an equal amount, but an equal rate. This would of course necessitate a reduction in government funding to prevent the need to accelerate the tax burden on lower income brackets to unsustainable levels.

A change of that nature may require rethinking the role of government in society and may ultimately require drastic privatization. How best to achieve that is a complex issue that would require much debate and thought, what shouldn’t require much debate is moral burden on government and society to ensure the equal and fair enforcement of necessary restrictions on human rights.

Tags: , , ,