I began writing articles for this blog a few months back, earlier this year. Up until that time, I assumed everyone wanted to live in a free society and be free. Writing about politics and listening to all the politicians, news pundits and individuals expressing themselves, I was mistaken. There is a broad spectrum of individuals who want a political system that soaks the rich to support them and take from others via the force of political government to give to them. It is obvious they do not desire a free society, yet instead a socialistic system that supports them.
One can only have and live in a free society if ownership of private property is permitted. So what is one’s role in a free society? Is it freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom to vote? Definitely these and more. The overriding, most important dramatic issue is the right to own private property. It is the very foundation upon which a free society sits. The freedom to worship and express is available to some degree in communist countries.
Chapter 1, article 4 of the Russian Constitution states: “The foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production, firmly established as a result of the liquidation of the capitalistic system of economy. The abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production, and the elimination of the exploitation of man by man.”
That country was broken up and we hear things changed, yet we also hear different stories that some private ownership is permitted, grudgingly. We hear talk of a democracy, but did things change in name only with the same old rulings with a different name at the top? We really don’t know. The ownership that’s permitted might just be the agriculture worker owning a hoe or a hayfork. Ownership of property is a total concept, which means you can do anything with your property as you decide, even destroy it.
If anyone thinks in this country, one can tear down a building they think they own, without a government permit, wake up.
The importance of private ownership can be understood from the nature of man as he is. By our nature, we are consumers and destroyers. We take the things nature has provided and we destroy them. We use things and they no longer exist. We cut down trees and use for firewood. We cut down a tree and process it to make paper. We chop down a tree to build a house or to make furniture. When we do this, we have destroyed the trees and they no longer exist. In the cold, we might not survive without the house or the firewood.
Is it morally right to do this? We assume it is good and morally right to stay alive. It’s an assumption some may disagree upon. Yet we cannot prove it. What is provable is that man is a destroyer in order to stay alive. He destroys the cow to make the hamburger. He destroys when he consumes it. We take thousands of things from nature and destroy them be changing them. Lime makes mortar and clay makes pots to cook in, dishes to eat out of and bricks to build houses.
By our nature, we are compelled to destroy things to survive. But our right to destroy stops cold at the boundary of another human being. We know it is morally wrong to destroy the life of another human being. We have a built-in sense of brotherhood when it comes to other human beings. We have the great moral document of the Ten Commandments, which spells it out for us. Our nature compels us to destroy, but the choice making of our conscience warns us not to do this, i.e., not to trespass on another of our kind.
Even animals instinctively do not destroy their kind. If they do, it is usually from a trespass. A bull might bore another because the cow is his. We don’t know for sure, but think animals establish their territory by scent. You think you own your cat? The cat purrs and rubs against you and thinks he or she owns you. We may not use the smell test, but our property sense is very strong.
My three-year-old grandson has a strong sense of ownership, and makes no bones about his ownership of that which belongs to him. He shares with other kids only when he decides to. He is sweet and sometimes quite generous with his things, but only as he decides. If another child walks up and tries to take something, he holds on and says, “this is mine.” We have a built-in radar sense of ownership. It’s our nature.
We have a right to live and in order to live, we must destroy. Since every person has the same rights, how do we establish our ownership? The answer is by a boundary. We cannot own anything unless it has a boundary. Whether it’s food, buildings, land cars, clothing, among other things, it has a boundary in order to be owned. These are tangibles. Even intangibles, known as intellectual property, can have an established boundary. Music, contractual agreements and other things have a boundary. That which is on your side of the boundary you own, but not what is on the other side of the boundary.
You can own a bottle of perfume so long as it’s contained in a bottle, but once it’s sprayed into the atmosphere the boundary is lost and you no longer own it. Anything you own you can morally destroy. Conversely, if you must obtain permission from another you do not own but may possess. Possession is not ownership.

If you decide to cut down a tree on property you think you own, but must obtain permission to chop it down, you in fact do not own it. It’s a sort of tribal permission that allows you to keep it. Any person who has the final authority to destroy is the true owner. Ownership is always total and is within boundaries. The way to determine actual ownership of anything boils down to whether or not you can destroy it. And I’m not speaking of the wisdom or non-wisdom of destruction.
Despite the fact our nature compels us to destroy, to live morally, we cannot destroy that which belongs to another. Ownership is moral because there are established limits to our destruction.
Seven of the Ten Commandments deal with the concept of property ownership. When we violate them, we trespass. When we understand that which constitutes ownership of property, and our requirement for it, we can understand the moral concept of private ownership.
The very basic premise of socialism is a rejection of private ownership. The notion of so-called collective ownership is a premise of tribalism. Never in our history has it been more important to understand private ownership than NOW. Never in our history has political government taken private property away from us in such large chunks at a time as they are doing now. So indiscriminately, we do not know what they will do tomorrow. There are no checks and balances. Did congress pass on the decision to take billions from the pockets of wage earners to bail out banks and companies? If they did, I failed to hear about it. All I heard was the wimpy remark from John McCain who said, “The government should not have done that.”
The three branches of government are divided so that one makes the laws, one interprets the laws and one executes the law. What law was passed that permitted an $800 billion bailout?
The money individuals have which belongs to them is private ownership. The taking of this money is an outrage. And one does not own anything they don’t control. One has lost control of their property even before they have it if part of payment is going to be from payroll taxes. If this is the case, your property will be earmarked for a debt you never incurred even before you earn it.
If freedom and ownership is in fact a total concept, 100 percent, what percentage is already under socialism domination? What percentage have we already lost? Think of it as a hypothetical round whole pie. How many slices do we have left?
Let Freedom Ring!


Share →

0 Responses to Defining The Role Of Private Property Ownership (Issue 84)

  1. I give birth to read a scarcely any of the articles on your website trendy, and I unqualifiedly like your tastefulness of blogging. I added it to my favorites net stage list and last will and testament be checking promote soon. Cheer contain out my put as well and leave to me know what you think. Thanks.