In Part 1 of this series, we looked at why naming the standard of value is crucial to defending property rights. In Part 2, we examined the flaws in arguing that a proposal goes “too far.” In this post, we will look at how the lack of precision undermines the defense of property rights.
Those who would violate property rights attempt to justify their proposals by using terms that often sound noble and good. Violating property rights, they claim, will empower the people, protect neighborhoods, improve our quality of life, or promote the “public interest.” These terms might sound good, but what do they mean?
Unfortunately, the enemies of property rights do not bother to explain or define their terms. They expect us to “just know” and to agree. And if we allow them to do that, then they control the debate. They set the terms of the debate, and nobody knows what those terms mean.
In truth, these terms mean that the group serves as the standard of value. Empowering the people means that the non-owners of a parcel of land will have a voice in its use. Protecting neighborhoods means that those with political clout can dictate how others use their property. Improving our quality of life means that the values of some will be imposed on others. And the “public interest” means that individuals must sacrifice their flourishing for the alleged well-being of “the public.”
If we demand that the enemies of property rights define their terms, then they must state what they truly mean. They can no longer hide behind noble sounding terms. They can no longer expect us to “just know” what they mean.
If we want to defend property rights, then we must demand that those who would violate those rights tell us exactly what they mean. If they can’t, then that exposes them for the frauds that they are. And if they won’t, then that exposes them for the monsters that they want to be. Read Part 4 of this series.