Some Questions About Private Property

[Eric Mathis]

Okay Eric, I understand where you are coming from. You're saying that Ayn Rand wanted government never to own any property, not even that which is voluntarily donated to it.

From the whole of her writing, it is clear that this is not what she meant.

Since you're a moderator, Aunt Prudence advises me to let my debate with you stop here.

[Inspector]

Holy threadjack batman! I suggest the mods should split this thread...

[AlexL]

Ayn Rand: “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

OK, let me try this.

The government is an agent, a paid agent. Let's make the analogy with a hired detective, which is also a paid agent and see where it leads us.

Let's keep in mind that right to property means right to gain, keep, use and dispose as one sees fit.

I hire a detective, that is we agree on a specific contract for a specific task with him. Now, I give him some money in advance. What is the property status of this money? Before I gave it to him, it was mine. After I gave it to him, whose is it, that is who can keep, use and dispose of it as he wants?

The detective? No, he has no freedom to use it as he wishes; he must use it for one specific purpose, the one set by the agreed contract.

Am I still the owner? Well, only if the contract specifies that I can get the money back at any moment. But if I want the job well done, it is not in my interest to have such a whimsical clause in the contract, because such a Damocles sword is not conductive to a good job on the part of the detective. And, anyway, this is only an analogy, and in the case of a government, things don't work that way.

So, we can conclude that the money the agent received is, strictly speaking, nobody's property. More precisely, it's use and disposal is not in the hands of a person, but is strictly prescribed by a contract.

In a way, the contract itself is the new owner, or, better, "owner", as no leeway is permitted. "Custody" might be a better word. A judge intervenes in case of conflict.

For the case of a government, this means that the government has no property in the full sense of the word. The judiciary is the supervisor of the correct execution of the contract. The legislative establishes the content of the contract, etc.

Threfore, the Ayn Rand's definition holds as written.

Alex

Edited May 7, 2005 by AlexL