Arthur Foulkes
The Tribune-Star
TERRE HAUTE — Is private property evil? Are people who support the sanctity of private property selfish and greedy?
These are not just academic questions. They are as practical as living, surviving and prospering.
For many people, private property is another term for selfishness. They equate the concept with a child clutching a toy and saying “Mine!” Or else they have horrifying visions of a neighbor allowing junked cars to pile up in his yard without limit. For them, the defense of private property is often the defense of antisocial behavior.
But a deep cultural and legal respect for private property rights is really a matter of life and death.
Many writers have pointed out that Haiti lacks a legal system that protects private property rights. The Heritage Foundation, which ranks the world’s countries according to economic freedom, has consistently ranked Haiti among the world’s worst regarding respect for private property rights.
“Property is not secure in Haiti,” stated the Index of Economic Freedom in 2005, which gave Haiti its lowest ranking in that category. In 2010, the Index ranked Haiti’s property rights protection superior only to Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe.
In his 2000 book “The Mystery of Capital,” economist Hernando de Soto wrote that 68 percent of urban Haitians and 97 percent of rural Haitians live on property with no clear legal title. More recently, noting the connection between a lack of property rights and the recent terrible destruction and death in Haiti, Ball State University economist T. Norman van Cott wrote:
“Tell me, if you were building a house for which you do not have legal title, how interested would you be to use your resources to build a more durable structure? Not very, I’m sure. Certainly less interested compared to if you had clear title to the structure. After all, you’re unsure about whether someone can come along and take away ‘your’ house, and you’re unsure about your ability to sell the house in the sure. The resulting shabby construction won’t cause earthquakes, but it’ll make earthquake-related damages more extensive. Even fatal.”
But isn’t all this just an excuse to defend selfishness? Isn’t it better to share everything we have with everyone? While some characterize a strong defense of private property rights as greedy and even “un-Christian,” I believe there are some pretty ancient and even sacred defenses of private property rights. For example, the commandments “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house” or anything else that belongs to him seem to me to imply an important respect for private property rights.
People certainly should not be discouraged from sharing what they earn. But such sharing should be voluntary. If not voluntary, it seems to me it’s not really the result of a moral decision to share at all. And demanding that other people be forced to share strikes me as perhaps an excellent way to appear superior and enlightened but not very useful otherwise.
