How Much Property Is Ethical?

Mine. It’s mine. No one has the right to take anything from me. That’s theft.

It’s mine.

Property rights. What a mess.

In this age of oligarchy, the question of how much a few people, or corporations can own, or can control, is thrown into highlight again.

The novelist and priest Father Andrew Greeley used to write that the poor were not poor because the rich were rich. By the end of his career in the mid 2000’s, he was railing against greed as one of the seven deadly sins.

Property, taken widely to include money, is control. It confers the right to decide how both resources and people will be employed. It confers the right to choose a large chunk of social direction. For instance, under Jobs and Cook, Apple is a fiefdom; so long as the company stays solvent, it decides how a great deal of the activity of the best and brightest is spent. iPhones and Apple’s other innovations are great, but one can certainly imagine scenarios in which Apple employees’ time was better spent.

A more clear-cut case comes in the case of CitiBank, or any of the big banks and brokerages. These people have a LOT of money, and they control a huge chunk of the world’s resources and people–directly and indirectly. They do far more harm than good.

Property is the right to choose how resources, including people, are deployed.

Allowing private individuals and large groups to have large amounts of property is a decision to allow them to control large numbers of people and resources.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)

It may be justified if they make the world a better place. It is hard to justify if they don’t. We may like what Jobs, or Cook, or Musk have done (or add your favorite tycoon, and yes, I know all of those are problematic), while admitting that most billionaires and large corporations are a pox on the world economy, restricting innovation and free enterprise; crushing wages and strangling growth until they get their share. Few will defend Monsanto or most pharmaceutical companies, most large banks or brokerages, more American health insurers, large agriculture, and so on.

Those who do defend them are generally either on the payroll or have been trained in the ethical discipline of economics, which is meant to justify concentrations of wealth and capital.

Justice Brandeis famously noted that America could have great concentrations of wealth, or democracy, but not both. Jefferson said he feared banks more than standing armies as an enemy of liberty, which is a radically strong statement if you think about it for two seconds.

It is worth understanding that our definition of property, which is historically close to maximal, is a historical, and pre-historical, outlier. In many hunter-gatherer bands, if you want something another person has, you admire it, and they hand it to you. The idea that one could own ideas, and disallow other people from using them is something which would have struck most of humanity, for most of history, as insane.

And it is not so long ago that land which was not being used could be taken by anyone who would use it productively, be damned whoever owned it on paper. You could not leave resources unused, this was considered anti-social; even evil.

Property is entirely a social construction, and for most of history, justifications for the concept of property came down to, “We got here first, so it is ours,” and, “It is to everyone’s benefit that we use it.”

Capitalism is the bestest system ever, and therefore, the inequality it mandates is acceptable. People who have more money deserve it because they work harder, and are superior people who make superior decisions. Other people wouldn’t work at all if they didn’t have to, they must be compelled by Marx’s whip of hunger, or they’d sit on their lazy asses. If they are poor, they must not work hard enough, possess poor character, are stupid, and don’t make good decisions. They haven’t followed the approved steps.

They do not DESERVE money.

The actual value of money is almost entirely a social artifact. A dollar’s value, what it can buy or what opportunities it makes available in the US, is not located in any individual or in small groups, but in society as a whole; in many cases, this value was created by decisions made and work done by individuals long dead. (For the full argument, read “It’s Not Your Money.”)

But at the end of the day, this is the bottom-line truth:

Property is what society says it is.

What you can own and how much you can have of it, and when it is taken away, is entirely a social decision.  It is the acquiescence of your neighbours, in the broadest sense, which allows you to keep what you have–especially when it grows to include far more than your dwelling, tools, clothes, and the land on which you actually work.

Libertarianism is an attempt to take a socially granted license to use resources which are primarily a result of society’s efforts, not yours, and say that it is an intrinsic, individual human right.

But you did not train the workers you employ. You did not raise them or bear them. You did not educate them. You did not build the roads you use. And so on. The value, the advantage, of living in an advanced society is having access to all the infrastructure and institutions you did not build.

Let us bring this back to ethics.

To create a good society, that work is all necessary. It’s necessary that we build institutions, that we have infrastructure, that we support scientists (all the key research and inventions which created the internet were publically funded, for example).

It is also necessary that the people who are making the decisions are making good decisions. Bankers were making bad decisions. When they lost their money, it should have stayed lost. They weren’t harmed, like GM, by a crisis caused by other people, they were wiped out by a crisis of their own creation.

For a society to run well, we must be able to say, “You are not using society’s resources and people well, therefore, we are going to take away your ability to command so much of society’s resources.”

The larger we expand the sphere of property, as with intellectual property and the right to patent genetic codes, the more we say, “Only person X can make decisions about what to do with these resources.” We had better be damn certain that that one person, or corporation, or whoever owns these resources, is at least making good decisions, and ideally making better decisions than would be made if those resources had stayed in the commons, available for use by many.

And when we give a very few individuals and corporations the right to control a plurality or majority of our resources, locking out virtually everyone else from real decision-making beyond the anemic level of “consumer” and the neutered level of “voter,” we had, again, best be sure that those few people are making better decisions, for everyone, than would be made if a larger number of people had control over those resources and were making the decisions.

In short, if oligarchs want to control what people do, they need to make a strong case that their stewardship creates better results than those arising from people making these decisions themselves.

This is a rather high bar, and the genius of capitalistic ideology is that it’s not usually understood this is the case which must be made. Instead we are told, “Everyone is free to sell their labor,” as if that is freedom. Freedom to make your own decisions means not needing to work for someone else, and having the resources available to do what you want.

Freedom is not possible if you spend your life working for others when you’d rather not, knowing that, if you don’t, you will lose your shelter, go hungry, be without health care, and probably eventually die from lack of resources.

Freedom is the ability to choose what you do from a range of meaningful choices. The choice to work for Oligarch A or Oligarch B is not a meaningful choice.

Maximal property definitions and maximal acceptance of property concentration, deprive most of the population of their freedom. It is that simple.

They also show a vast distrust of the people, suggesting that if people had resources they would use them badly. This argument has been made by every tyrant since the beginning of agriculture: “I know better, and I will not lead by choice, but by coercion.”

The choice to starve if you don’t work for an oligarch is not much of a choice.

A sane property definition allows people to own the resources they need to do their work and take care of themselves and any dependents. Larger concentrations of property, meant for big projects, are necessary, but they must not be allowed to balloon in oligarchical control of politics and economy.

And I will suggest to you that this is both a much nicer world to live in and a more vibrant one. A world in which we are not slaves, but have freedom, will burst with creativity and projects. A world where ideas can be used by anyone will be a world in flower.

If you want freedom, look hard at property. The larger the sphere of property, and the more it is concentrated, the narrower most people’s world will be.