Property Right and Freedom

Private property is essential for a free nation. It gives meaning to the concept of freedom. It is a prerequisite for trading in a market economy. If the founders of a free nation are to have any chance of succeeding, they must have a moral theory of property rights.

Freedom and property rights are tightly related. Freedom means doing what you want to do rather than what someone else tells you to do. The right to do as you please with your own property makes up a large part of your freedom. On the other hand, other people's property rights limit your freedom. Each person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. A free nation would be a place where each person is free to acquire property and do whatever he wants with it without interference, as long as he does not trespass on the rights of others.

Freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech cannot be fully realized without private property. For example, there cannot be freedom of the press in a society where all printing presses are owned and controlled by the state. Even if the rulers do not want to practice censorship, unless they are willing to publish absolutely everything, which could require them to devote almost all resources to the publishing industry, they must decide, somehow, what to publish and what not to publish. They must also decide how many copies they will print of each publication, how to distribute them, what price to charge (if any) for each copy, and many other things that can affect the impact that the publication will have on society.

Even so-called free countries, whose governments do not directly interfere with religious practices and which permit private property, impose general regulations and taxes that limit religious activity more than a truly free nation would. Local governments restrict religious freedom indirectly through zoning laws and building codes. All levels of government that collect taxes thereby limit the resources that taxpayers can spend on religion. By demanding tax payments under penalty of the law, all states imply that what they want is more important than what any god or religious community or individual wants.
Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want on your own property and the right to stipulate the rules that others must obey when they speak on your property. It is not the right to speak at the same time as everyone else, to interrupt, to shout down, or to disregard the rights of others. You should always get permission from the owner before using his property as your stage. If the streets and parks and town halls and theaters and all other meeting places are owned by the state, the state must decide whether to permit assemblies, protest marches, and speeches. The state has the right to say how the public property may be used, including who may speak there and what they may say. Under communism there is likely to be less freedom of expression and freedom of religion than in a private property system. Any freedom allowed in these areas under communism is at the pleasure of the ruling class and they can end it whenever they choose.
The more private property you own, the more ability you have to exercise these freedoms. But what about the poor man who has no property? What difference does it make to him whether all property is in private hands or whether it is in the hands of the state? In either kind of society, he can't do anything or have any freedom unless someone who owns property allows him the use of it. In either case, someone other than he decides what actions he is allowed to perform, if any. This poor wretch is clearly in a bad situation under either system. Even so, he should prefer the private property system, because it offers him more hope of improving his situation. First, in the private property system there are many property owners ranging from struggling poor folks to small businessmen to big tycoons. Somewhere in this range there is bound to be someone looking to hire workers or someone with compassion looking to help people in need. The propertyless man has many different people he can plead with or try to negotiate with to get temporary use of property. If one property owner turns him down, he can try another, and another, and another. But when the state owns all the property, the state is the only one he can plead with or try to negotiate with. If the state turns him down, he is done. Second, if he understands economics or history, our vagrant will realize that a free-market economy produces more and more wealth and, consequently, more and more total freedom, whereas a centrally planned economy wastes resources and produces less and less wealth and less total freedom. In a free-market economy there is an increasing amount of wealth available for charity and there are more new business opportunities for people who are looking for work. In a centrally planned economy, the amount of wealth available for distribution constantly shrinks as the planners inevitably misallocate resources. Third, in the private property system, the propertyless wretch has a possibility of someday owning property and, thereby, gaining some freedom and independence. Under the state-ownership system, he has no chance of ever owning property and being free.