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 Part 3, we looked at the importance of precision and defining terms. In this post, we will examine the failure to look at the full context.
If we want to make good decisions about a policy proposal, then we must examine the full context. We must look at the pros and cons of the proposal. We must look at alternatives, as well as the pros and cons of them. And we must look at the long-term consequences. Unfortunately, this seldom occurs, and the defenders of property rights are often as guilty as the enemies of property rights.
Every policy has pros and cons. But if we do not identify and examine them, then we cannot make the best decision. Every policy has alternatives, including doing nothing. And these too have pros and cons. And every policy has long-term consequences. If we do not identify and consider those consequences, then a policy that seems good today may be devastating in the long term.
To properly defend property rights, we must demand that the full context be identified and considered. The enemies of the right to property won’t do it because the full context does not support their policies.
If we fail to identify and address the full context, then those who would violate property rights have the advantage. The facts—all of the relevant facts—are not being raised and discussed. If the facts are on the side of property rights, and they are, then we must raise those facts and demand that they facts be discussed.
Identifying and addressing the full context is seldom easy. It requires a “big picture” perspective. It requires us to look beyond the immediate issue. It requires us to identify and apply principles. But the consequences of proposals that would violate property rights have life changing implications. They will determine whether we can flourish or suffer in misery. If flourishing is our desire, then we must defend our freedom to flourish. And fundamentally, that means defending the right to property. Read Part 5 of this series.