Asher Sisneros

When debating the merits of various economic systems, the concept of private property repeatedly comes up. However, is private property a social construct or an inalienable right given by God? That is one of the questions in the debate regarding economic systems. The socialist believes private property is purely a social construct that can be reshaped to satisfy the needs of each coming generation. Moreover, since the right to govern private property is not an inalienable right according to the socialists, it is not contradictory for them to say that the right to private property can be ignored if it results in a more equitable society. However, the capitalist objects, make the case that the concept of private property is pivotal for a functioning and consistent society. Moreover, he argues that private property is an inalienable right given by God that cannot be trampled over by the hubris of mankind. So this really comes down to the simple question: Is private property a right or a privilege?¹  

According to John Locke, the first step to deciphering property rights is to start with the concept of self-ownership. As it implies, self-ownership is the process of owning oneself as it relates to fellow men. Meaning, that individuals exercise stewardship over their bodies, not other people. This is a relatively basic concept to understand, and it is a concept that all people are born with. Put simply, each person is entitled to a natural right over their body. 

Labor is a byproduct of oneself. Since it has already been established that each individual owns themselves as it relates to fellow men, when their bodies produce labor, that labor is also theirs. Thus, private property comes from an evolution of self-ownership. Common objects in nature that do not belong to any particular person become private property when someone mixes their labor with it. For example, if someone cuts down a tree, that wood becomes their private property; if someone cultivates a field and plants rice, that rice becomes their private property; if someone builds a house with their labor, that house becomes their private property. It all comes down to the mixture of labor. According to Locke, labor is the origin of ownership. 

Finally, under this logic, Locke concludes that property rights are natural rights (i.e. God-given) because they stem from self-ownership, which is clearly an inalienable right. Socialism is a blatant violation of these basic property rights because socialism states that all people own everything. Yet, according to Locke, if someone did not mix their labor with a natural resource, or buy/trade to acquire something from someone who mixed their labor with a natural resource, they are not entitled to any ownership. In short, socialism is not only a failed economic system that history proves is futile, but socialism is morally repugnant because it completely violates the origins of ownership.

1. Why do I distinguish between rights and privileges? It is quite simple. According to Sadowsky, one possesses a right to do something if it would be immoral for someone else to restrict your ability to do that thing. For example, it is perfectly legal and moral for me to breathe. If someone were to physically restrict me from breathing, that would be immoral, making breathing a certain right I can exercise. 
   
   What the libertarian fails to realize is that God is the definer of morality. If morality is a social construct, it cannot be a universal standard for all civilizations at all periods. However, the standard of morality must be consistent. Our understanding of morality may change, but morality itself must be the same across eras in history and universal for all peoples. 
   
   A privilege, on the other hand, is a luxury that I may possess, but it would not necessarily be immoral for someone to restrict my ability to exercise that privilege. If it was immoral for someone to restrict by ability to exercise it, that privilege would be a right. If it is not immoral for someone to restrict my actions, that is a privilege. 
   ↩︎