Individual rights are the bedrock of a free society. In their absence, civilization ceases and some form of mob rule begins. Chief among these are property rights. Yet many of us have been taught since childhood that material things don't matter; so why are property rights so paramount?
While it is debatable which of democracy's rights is the most important, the right of ownership is certainly high on the list. All other rights are less significant if the freedoms they allow fail to manifest themselves in reality, as with the material output of one's efforts ' property. The right of ownership is a firmly ingrained aspect of Americana, but it is never safe from notions that threaten to eliminate it.
Children are taught to share everything on the playground, but the practicality of this does not carry over to the adult world. Many are fond of invoking a greater good
but this has never been anything more than an abstraction with no rational meaning. What this Kumbaya logic would actually produce, if taken to the full measure, is a climate of chaos reminiscent of the barbaric tribal societies of centuries past. Despite quixotic visions of peaceful sharing, the absence of property rights would inevitably lead to this sharing taking place at gunpoint.
Let's examine the desirability of collective ownership. This notion would strip the individual of the benefits of his own endeavors and blindly award it to the nearest beggar, irrespective of the worth of that person. Thus, society's producers, those with the talent and energy to contribute to its greatness, become the thralls of those who would merely wait to reap the fruit of another's labor. In a sane world, these parasites of the entitlement state and the bleeding hearts who pity them would both receive their proper classification as thieves.
There's no reason to believe that this is an immediate threat, as property rights are generally well respected in America. But in the meantime, those who see that there is nothing morally wrong with wanting to enjoy the results of one's own work ' a home, transportation, stocks and bonds or whatever one wishes to spend it on ' should remain prepared to defend the pursuit of their own happiness should it be threatened by the propaganda of selflessness. There is nothing morally redeemable about sacrificing such earnings to those who have not earned them.
And if the looters take the form of politicians, the need to oppose them is more pressing. This summer, President Bush made a rare good decision by issuing an executive order limiting the government's use of eminent domain. This principle allows the government to take over private property for a public use. Private ownership should always take precedence over public uses as the phrase itself is vulnerable to broad interpretation.
The one realm in which property rights remain most threatened in America is in the arts. The right of ownership has necessarily garnered mainstream acceptance, but this is failing to carry over to the intellectual property of a digital age. Unfortunately, the victims of this trend are artists. Despite the efforts of the entertainment industry to save itself from the scourge of copyright infringement, most Americans are unwilling to recognize that theft of intellectual property is as vile as theft in general.
The possible fallout of this rising culture of theft is that artists will respond in the only way they can ' by ceasing to produce works of brilliance to enjoy. If consumers are unwilling to compensate these talented people for their efforts, they will cease to share them. Artists have to eat as well, and it is the upcoming ones who are most threatened by this trend.
But when property rights become cheap and fleeting, no one wins. America is not a sandbox and what is at stake are not mere toys, but the products of ingenuity, hard work and perseverance ' which belong only with their source.
17
Archives
Joe Vance
