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 Part 4, we examined the failure to look at the full context. In this post, the final of the series, the points made in the previous posts will be summarized and integrated.
Too often, the defenders of property rights do not make the fundamental issues explicit. They do not identify and state the standard of value being used by those who would violate the right to property. Indeed, they often accept the group as the standard of value and argue that a particular proposal goes “too far.” They often do not demand that the enemies of property rights define their terms. And they seldom identify and articulate the full context. If we want to effectively defend property rights, these are the issues that we must raise and demand that our enemies address.
In failing to address these issues, we give the enemies of property rights the advantage. We allow them to establish the terms of the debate, and we do not challenge them at the most fundamental level. We do not challenge their principles.
Property rights are a primary enabler of individual flourishing. Property rights do not guarantee that an individual will flourish. But without property rights, individuals cannot flourish. They cannot attain and use the values that bring them joy, satisfaction, and happiness.
If we want to defend property rights, then we must defend the moral right of individuals—each and every individual—to flourish. We can’t make exceptions. Either we defend the principle of property rights or we don’t. And if we are going to defend property rights, then we must do so completely and consistently.
Since the late 19th century, property rights in America have been steadily eroded. The reason is that those who have attempted to defend the right to property have committed the errors identified in this series. They have enabled the violation of property rights.
If we wish to stop the steady and expanding violation of property rights, then we must do better. We must refuse to concede principles. We must demand precision and consideration of the full context. We must demand that those who would stifle individual flourishing justify why that is proper. They can’t. And that will be clear to any rational individual if we use principles to defend property rights.