By the 16th century philosophers began conjecturing whether private property was a natural right. Meanwhile Oppressors continued forward with their own agendas.
by Robert Simmons
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi
L is for Liberty
Our modern misunderstanding of property rights began around the turn of the 16th century, as philosophers tried to decide whether ownership of property was a natural right. Thomas Hobbes believed government had to exist first, in order to secure property rights. John Locke, however, believed the right to property existed prior to government. His argument began with the premise that every man holds a “property right” to his own body, and thus his own labor. He extended this even further, adding that a man also owns whatever his labor creates, and whatever (as yet unappropriated) resources he mixes with his labor to create it.
Adam Smith gave all this an interesting twist by claiming that Liberty was a man’s true natural right, but gets compromised without the ability to prosper through trade; thus government must guarantee and defend property rights, so that free trade can facilitate each person’s Liberty.
By the 18th century, Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarian school of thought added that the exercise of power, to secure natural rights, was not government’s only function. Government also had a role in maximizing the benefit of its citizens. This sentiment was expressed in the U.S. Constitution via the promise to “Promote the General Welfare”. Along with that responsibility came the price tag of federal taxation.
Our modern misunderstanding of property rights began around the turn of the 16th century, as philosophers tried to decide whether ownership of property was a natural right. Thomas Hobbes believed government had to exist first, in order to secure property rights. John Locke, however, believed the right to property existed prior to government. His argument began with the premise that every man holds a “property right” to his own body, and thus his own labor. He extended this even further, adding that a man also owns whatever his labor creates, and whatever (as yet unappropriated) resources he mixes with his labor to create it.
Adam Smith gave all this an interesting twist by claiming that Liberty was a man’s true natural right, but gets compromised without the ability to prosper through trade; thus government must guarantee and defend property rights, so that free trade can facilitate each person’s Liberty.
By the 18th century, Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarian school of thought added that the exercise of power, to secure natural rights, was not government’s only function. Government also had a role in maximizing the benefit of its citizens. This sentiment was expressed in the U.S. Constitution via the promise to “Promote the General Welfare”. Along with that responsibility came the price tag of federal taxation.
To summarize so far:
- Freedom (the power to act, speak, or think as one pleases, without restraint), gets converted to Liberty (the responsible use of freedom, which includes respecting the freedom of others).
- Liberty, without the capacity to prosper, is constrained, making the ability to freely trade with others a necessity.
- It is for this reason that property rights must be established and secured – a job for which government is uniquely qualified.
- Property rights start with the ownership of one’s body, and extends to one’s labor, and finally, to what this labor creates, when mixed with unappropriated resources. Together, these rights embody the essence of Freedom.
One cannot trade if one does not own anything.
Tibor Machan
Flawless (and seemingly well-intentioned) circular reasoning, but unfortunately, a complete load of crap.
F is for Force, O is for Oppression
Let us start over.
The first rule of property ownership is Force, and whoever possesses the greater use of it will prevail. All inhabitable real property on the planet has been usurped at least once, often by means of violent Force, perpetrated against whoever freely occupied the space previously.
The ownership of people as property is known as Oppression, and human property can be utilized to do all manner of labor, including fight neighboring human property, in order for Oppressors to gain even more real property, without having to die in pursuit of it themselves.
Thus, the only thing natural about our right to property is our natural tendency to Oppress each other.
Technology, in the form of weapons and transport, provides the direct means by which certain peoples have expanded their realms and conquered other peoples.
– Jared Diamond Guns, Germs, and Steel
G is for Guns, N is for Navy
Fast forward to more civilized times.
19th century England: Liberty was fully established, trade was freely flowing, and Consumerism was all the rage. The British had grown addicted to Chinese exports (silk, ceramics and tea), and per their right to Freedom, Liberty, Property, and Consumerism, they demanded this addiction be fed.
Unfortunately, England had nothing that China wanted; China remained a mysterious throwback, with a culture many thousands of years older than Consumerism; the Chinese had their heads filled with more spiritual notions like Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, borne out of the necessity of having Less, not More. A life of craving and satisfying addictions would definitely seem backward to a spiritual people, and in the Forbidden City, where the Oppressors of China ruled, the concept of their human property starting to want More likely made the ruling Emperor apprehensive.
Ultimately, England was forced to pay for these Chinese exports in silver, which England did not have in large supply (their Economy was based on the Gold Standard). This put England in debt. Luckily, The English found something that (when smuggled past the Chineses government), could get the Chinese people hooked on Western Consumerism: opium. The best opium was Javanese opium, and coincidentally, the British, through their East India (Trading) Company, had established property rights in (i.e. conquered) many parts of India and Indonesia; they quickly ramped up opium production in these territories, and the rest is history.
Opium got England out of debt, put kickbacks into the hands of the English parliament, made merchants rich, and as Chinese government saw an even greater rise in tea and silk consumption by the West, looked the other way for about 50 years.
At that point, the Chinese government saw the detrimental effects of opium on their people, called it out for what is was, a poison, and banned it. When merchants continued to push it through the back door, the Chinese government was forced to intercede, demanding the opium be confiscated and destroyed.
The point of this story? To show that once trade has halted on property, it halted the Liberty of the British nation, because it infringed upon the Freedom of English people to drink their tea; that is when the Guns (and Navy) came out, and proved that Force and Oppression (subjugation) is the only real foundation for any so-called human rights.
The Opium Wars also show the ripple effects of Force and Oppression, as the British not only bullied the Chinese into continuing to peddle their opium, they also usurped the island of Hong Kong, much to the amusement of prince Albert, and the delight of his fist cousin / wife Queen Victoria (for “having got [herself] the Island”). Although no one currently talks about it in the West (imperialism is so 19th century), the Chinese still sting from this humiliation.
The Top 15 Things Money Can’t Buy: Time. Happiness. Inner Peace. Integrity. Love. Character. Manners. Health. Respect. Morals. Trust. Patience. Class. Common sense. Dignity.
Roy T. Bennett, The Light in the Heart
Any rational human being could understand why China might flex its muscles a little too much when currently attempting to subdue Hong Kong, since it represents much more than a piece of property to them; the revolt of their own people, in order to reject an Eastern Less is More way of life for a Western More is More way of life, is a shame-filled personal affront to be sure; the Yin and Yang, personified.
This story also exposes the linchpin of so-called free market economics: in order to maximize profits, property is best utilized when mixed with labor to create addictive substances. The formula for the new Oppression – Accumulating Wealth – is to utilize addiction to enhance consumerism and garner maximum profit; this leads us to the new weapon of Force: Money.
M is for Money, S is for Segregation
Force divided up all the real property, which, mixed with labor, created the tangible goods that drove the Economics of Consumerism.
Government was instituted to secure the legitimacy of these property rights, by establishing a monopoly on the only legal use of Force. In feudal times, or during the U.S. period of slavery, those who labored on the property owned by Oppressors had at least some access to food, clothing and shelter; with the introduction of Money, those at the bottom rung of the economic ladder were given a chance to own a piece of their own Oppression, which psychologically felt more like Liberty than the previous arrangement.
One dollar was exchanged for a day of labor, enough for a citizen to purchase their own food, clothing and shelter, while the general principle of Oppression, derived from property ownership, still remained.
Those who owned property were not only worth more money, they controlled the means of all production generated from this property, and with this wealth could accumulate even more property (this time “legally”, thanks to government and their “legal tender”). Government even allowed private interests to help create the Money Supply, from Banks to the Federal Reserve itself, so that there was no chance to ever rectify the original “forced” arrangement of property ownership (and thus the subjugation / oppression of those living on said property).
Property is the driver of Wealth in America, and when scrutinizing the Segregation of Americans through property, the ongoing effects of Oppression can be easily seen. The main goal of the FHA, created in 1934, was to rejuvenate the depressed private housing market. Having been established before any talk of “Civil Rights”, loans only went to developers who built for the white population, which allowed them to flee to new suburbs (White Flight), and leave the poor people with color behind in city centers. Once this Urban Sprawl was created, larger freeway systems were needed to connect everything together, and Eminent Domain took on a racial overtone, as poorer urban areas were usurped for development of this transportation.
Affordability, night life, historic interest, revitalization; for many reasons, people started coming back to city centers. Again, government partnered with private investors to enable this “gentrification”. As Whites fled the city initially, banks saw no reason to lend to poor people, who were perceived as a risky investment; therefore, no improvement were ever made to poorer neighborhoods. When the government was forced to rectify the effect of their FHA program, it came up with the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), to compel private banks to lend to the poorer communities they both helped create. Gentrification investments were an easy out for private banks, as government somehow let them check the “reinvestment” box while lending to private developers, instead of lending any money to actual residents living within these poorer communities. Developers naturally sought profit, pricing poor people right out of their own neighborhoods. Again, government must shoulder the blame for this.
In our current form of Economics, the value of things is based on whether anyone desires to take it from you, and because they can no longer legally do so by use of physical Force, must possess the financial Force to do so. Once this Force has been applied, what is really going to stop people from further uses (and abuses) of Force?
Race doesn’t really exist for [White people] because it has never been a barrier. Black folks don’t have that choice.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie,Americanah
W is for White people have some issues
White people see white people faces as being more friendly than black people faces; research shows this may be because white people do not look black people in the eye, where the actual gauge of friendliness can be verified. Why we cannot look black people in the eye is open to interpretation, but none of the answers make white people look good.
White people think their property values go down when darker skinned people move into the neighborhood (good news for white people: realtors charge black people up to 5.4% more for real estate, so property values actually go up).
Black households somehow pay 13% more in property taxes than white households do for similar quality and amenities; meanwhile, homes in mostly black neighborhoods are worth 20% less than homes in white neighborhoods of similar quality, and with similar amenities.
Integration can only work two ways, and both of them are currently failing. White people and their government have time and again attempted to shut people with color out of their neighborhoods, and when Whites have come back into previously abandoned properties (through gentrification), it is apparently not to reconcile a past of which only the most ignorant and insensitive would not be cognizant
According to a recent study, minority owned homes are undervalued by an average of nearly $50,000 during the appraisal process in the US. Our financial experts created a guide to explain the unfortunate realities of racism and redlining in real estate, the home appraisal gap, and how to best overcome this reality.
BankRate.com
.Incidents of ramped up security (even to the point of hiring private security) has led to unneeded curfews and altercations within these newly gentrified neighborhoods, as Whites show no tolerance for any long established neighborhood cultural events or practices. White people do not appear capable of cultural assimilation when encroaching upon others, yet still seem quite adamant about culturally assimilating every one else in order to follow their preferred way of life. H is for Hypocrisy.
This is my doctrine: Give every other human being every right you claim for yourself.
Robert G. Ingersoll,The Liberty Of Man, Woman And Child
R is for Rights, F is for Fairness
On the playing field of Life, Rights are the rules that define the game; if the rules vary depending on the player, clearly the playing field is not level. When considering important issues, such as Life or Liberty, Justice throwing a penalty flag after the foul has occurred is a meaningless gesture. More benefit is obtained through defining the rules (and our rights) more clearly.
Economics is about profit and is neither designed nor is capable of attending to the rights or just treatment of people.
To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-Declaration Of Independence
Currently, government is weak; it lets the free market decide government policy, and through taxation, attempts to reactively fix all the failings of this strategy after it occurs. As in all reactive decision making, unforeseen ripple effects can further exacerbate the situation.
Government has proven incapable of regulating Economics, or counterbalancing it, either. A strategy of pitting Big Economics against Big Government, in the form of political parties squared up on either side, makes for marginal Reality TV, but could never define some fictitious middle ground. Both blindly follow the principles of Economic Growth, so wind up two sides of the same ineffectual coin. The solution is to place Government in charge in such a way that Economics can somehow continue unimpeded, yet at the same time, operate for the good of all people. Meanwhile, the power of government must be checked so perfectly, that when Oppressors attempt to seize control, they grab nothing but thin air.
There is only one answer. A National Bank
The United States is a giant piece of property. Government is what makes U.S. Property rights legitimate. Government is We the People. Therefore, property rights are made legitimate by We the People.
For the Invisible Hand of Government to move Economics where We the People need it to go, the weapon of Force (Money) needs to be placed equally into every American’s hands, thus dispersing power as Democracy (not people) originally intended. Voting is the vehicle of the Oppressed; Money is the highest power, and We the People must gain control of it.
The rule change is simple. Government is what makes Money legitimate. Government is We the People. Therefore, Money is made legitimate by We the People.
Whether it be Private Banks, Land Barons, Amazon, AT&T, Cargill et al, The richest people in the world currently own all the platforms (i.e. infrastructure) by which any relevant economic transactions can be made by the rest of us. The “old school” platform was land, where anything from housing to agriculture to commerce could run; newer platforms include communication, electricity, transportation, education, healthcare, and water / sewer.
What all these platforms have in common is that they are essential to our 21st century existence. This is why there is already a government department specifically designated for every one of these essential needs (except for communication – but that will come soon).
The Third Option has a plan to re-establish Alexander Hamilton’s original National Bank, and begin to route our income taxes, as well as all “essential” financial transactions through it. This would establish that We the People (and our government) own the money creation process, not private institutions. Through this National Bank, essential needs platforms could be rebuilt, when necessary (and many are necessary right now); with this arrangement, we could curb greenhouse gas emissions (from Energy, Agriculture, and Transportation), as well as fairly distribute housing, healthcare, education, and utilities to every U.S. community.
This would create a sustainable closed-loop economic arrangement, as our taxes turn into investments, used solely for every one’s essential needs, and whatever profit results would go back into the National Bank, to be equally distributed in the form of “Shareholder Dividends”. Income taxes now represent a kind of “rent” that private landlords have happily gouged us with for centuries, but which We the People, as “public” owners / stewards of the land known as the United States, would now collect.
The logic behind this is simple: We the People are what make the property known as The United States more than a piece of dirt with a few rivers on it. Whatever transpires between us on this piece of dirt is derived by the consent of the governed, and because We the People also make legitimate the Money used in all transactions on this piece of dirt, we would demand our rent in this form of payment.
Economics can run wild. Whatever it makes, We the People would now get a cut of it. If we turn into (or remain) greedy Oppressors, at least we would all profit from it together. If we wish to fix climate change, or better monitor our overall health, or eventually adopt a Less is More kind of lifestyle, our fates would all be tied together either way. A nice raised floor for every one, and no ceiling above us. More Fairness, Certainty, Inclusivity, and Sustainability. The American Dream and Democracy revitalized. Oppression has held us back so long, we are not sure we even deserve Liberty or Democracy or Equality, but we do. The only catch is that we have to allow every one else to have it, also.
The Alchemists by Neil Irwin – a Book Review