Discussions of property rights (as well as most policy issues) are cluttered with clichés and bromides. These terms and phrases depend on ambiguity and fuzzy definitions for their effectiveness. On the surface, they often sound appealing, and this works to the advantage of the enemies of property rights. They talk about protecting our heritage or improving the community’s quality of life or protecting neighborhoods, and many find these terms appealing. But what do these ambiguous terms really mean?
Ambiguous terminology can, by definition, be interpreted different ways. For example, “Tom walked his dog in pajamas” could mean that either Tom or the dog was wearing pajamas. In this example, the ambiguity is humorous. But when we are discussing serious issues, such as property rights, ambiguity isn’t a laughing matter. It can make the difference between good policy decisions and bad.
Too often, when an opponent of property rights uses a cliché or bromide, defenders of the right to property do not challenge the terminology. They do not demand clarity and precision. Instead, they often interpret the words in a positive way, ignoring the possible negative meaning. In doing so, they allow the enemies of property rights to “smuggle” dangerous premises into the discussion. And that works to the advantage of those who would violate property rights.
However, if we demand clarity and precision, we can expose those premises. We can subject them to the bright sunlight of rational discourse, rather than allow them to lurk in the shadows like a mugger waiting to assault an unsuspecting individual.
You can take our mini-course “Why Precise Thinking Matters” for free by signing up below.