|
 Most of
us probably agree that some system of
property, some
set of property rights, is both useful
and morally justified. But we also know that
the rights of property have varied enormously
in different cultures around the world. It
makes us wonder what system of property is
justified for us in the United States.
I can think of lots of
questions that need to be answered, but I
don't think I know all the answers.
- Are there natural property
rights -- the sort that exist in what
philosophers call the "state of nature?" I
think that by "in the state of nature"
they mean "in the absence of
government."
- If there are natural rights to property,
how extensive are they? Are they quite
limited or quite strong? What sorts of
qualifications or obligations go with
ownership?
- Again, if there are natural rights to
property, how does anyone come to own
anything? Is there something you have to
say or do in order to make something
yours? Is there something other people
have to do?
- If people have natural property rights
in the state of nature, do those same
property rights continue to exist after
government is established?
- If not, what sort of property rights should
exist in a society with government? Where
do they come from? Where should
they come from?
- Can we argue for property rights that
are not natural? On what basis? A
utilitarian might try to base property
rights on the principle of utility. Others
might derive them from a hypothetical
social contract. Some might propose a
theological basis. Do any of those
approaches work?
- Are there inherent limitations on the
rights of property? I'm thinking of
limitations that are built into the basic
justification of property rights?
- Are there competing moral concerns
that limit the exercise of property (and
other) rights?
- Is there a single set of property
rights that is 'correct' in some
sense? I think this is where all the
cultural diversity anthropologists talk
about begins to bother us and make us
doubt our personal intuitions.
- If there are natural property rights or
some other kind of property rights, are
they similar to classical liberal or
modern libertarian property rights? Or are
they quite different?
- If there is no single set of 'correct'
property rights, where do we go from
there? Can we argue that one set of
property rights is best for us under
current circumstances?
- What does all this mean for the role of
government and the level of taxation and
regulation? What does it mean for the
controversy over the minimal state versus
the welfare state?
- Do property rights preclude all welfare
rights or do they simply limit welfare
rights in some way?
If strong natural property
rights continue to exist after government is
established, then everything we do, including
everything the state does, is limited by those
property rights. If there are no natural
property rights, or if they cease to apply
once government exists, or if they cease to
apply under certain circumstances, then
government is not subject to such
restrictions.
Some modern libertarians take the view that
there are natural property rights and they
continue to exist under government. Others
base property rights on prudence and game
theory. Most 20th-century liberals would
probably take the view that property is a
creation of government, or, at least, that its
rules can be modified by government.
These are crucial questions for any philosophy
of government, any view of justice, and any
justification for the welfare state.
They are the sticky wicket.
|
