1.14 The Right of Property

Philosophy speculates about the origin of the right of property, as does legislation in regulating the manner of its transfer. But in fact, the belief that government creates any right of property is "obviously a mere mockery" because the greatest thief in any nation is the government itself, which seizes the property of its citizens at a whim

It should be self-evident that the right to own property and dispose of it as one so desires is fundamental to productivity, for who would endeavor to labor upon his lands if the product of his toil is not his own? And who can doubt that the person who owns property will be the most judicious and cautious in its use? Yet, we can readily witness the frequency and degree to which these axioms are readily ignored or violated, "justified on the most flimsy pretexts."

The example was previously given of the Ottomans, who seized the property of their subjects at a whim, and as such their subjects engaged in little industry. The same can be seen in any nation where taxes are arbitrarily imposed upon the citizens: to take from men the product of their labor is to destroy their incentive to undertake labor in equal measure.

This holds true not only for the product of production, but the instrument of production: if a man's land can be seized, he has no incentive to improve it or labor upon it. If the liberty of an individual to pursue the activities he deems most profitable to himself is infringed, such as requisitioning a craftsman into military service, he is prevented from exercising his craft and discouraged from pursuing it.

Those societies that are the most wealthy, in terms of the volume of goods produced and the degree to which their citizens enjoy the necessities and luxuries of life are those in which the right of property is least infringed. It is no mere coincidence, but a direct consequence.

The author does not dispute that there are instances in which private property must be seized for public use - a nation under siege may need to seize crops to feed the soldiers that defend the people rom an aggressor. But too often, national security is tendered as an excuse for the seizure of property when there is no imminent threat. This is true even of excess taxation in time of peace to fortify the national treasure in case of a future conflict - how often the national war-chest is depleted for far more frivolous purposes.

Even when public safety actually demands the sacrifice of private property, that sacrifice is still a violation of the people who are dispossessed, and it is done at the detriment of the general welfare.

And it is with some irony that it can be observed that, on the pretense of protecting a man from the alleged threat of having his land seized by another government, his own government will seize it, and thus he suffers with certainty the same fate that was allegedly a possibility, on the premise that doing so is justified by the need to protect from seizure the very asset that is seized.