Property and Order

Um importantíssimo texto que se pode resumir na frase:

"It is respect for the boundary line separating your and my property interests that fosters both individual liberty and social order. This is why property, liberty, and social order, are simply different ways of talking about the same thing."

A ordem social, tão cara ao sentimento conservador, emana do direito à propriedade privada. E toda a desordem social emana dos ataques à propriedade privada. A instituição da família tradicional, enquanto célula social que tem um património real acumulado lentamente e perpetuado par as gerações seguintes (com a experiência sob a forma de as tradições que favorecem uma hierarquia natural – o patriarca, o clã, a comunidade), está sobre a ataque do racionalismo progressista do Estado moderno, porque através da regulação coerciva dos testamentos, dos impostos sobre a propriedade e rendimentos e ainda de doação, viola o direito à propriedade privada desmembrando esta função de regulação natural da ordem social.

Ao socializar a responsabilidade de tratamento dos mais velhos, ao socializar a tarefa de educar colectivamente os mais novos, com padrões pretensamente amorais e neutros, caímos lentamente no "admirável mundo novo", e hoje, até quem se diz conservador, assina por baixo de todas as instituições colectivizantes do Estado moderno.

Hoje as hierarquias naturais nascem da estrutura do Estado e daqueles que este favorece, ontem emanavam da "natural order". Não temos que nos admirar por todo o comportamento disfuncional da juventude e da sociedade em geral, infantilizada e sujeita às ideologias e modas do momento.

“Is there any social problem which, at its core, is not produced by a disrespect for the inviolability of property interests?
...
In each such instance, conflicts are created and maintained by government policies and practices that forcibly deprive a property owner of decision making control over something he or she owns.

Whether the ownership interest is in oneself, or in those external resources that a person requires in order to promote his or her interests or to otherwise express one’s purpose in life, the state is inevitably at war with property owners.

It is in this sense that every state – whatever its outer form, its constituency, or its rationale for existence – is socialistic. To whatever degree the state exists, it claims the rightful authority to preempt the control individuals have over their property.
...
Because all political systems are wars against the private ownership of property, statists must redefine social and political issues to exclude "property" as the defining factor.
...
One can go down the list of other "social" problems occasioned by the refusal to recognize the inviolability of property boundaries as the underlying cause. The distinction between victimizing crimes (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc.) and victimless crimes (e.g., drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc.) is that the former category involve violations of individual property interests, while the latter do not. In fact, properly understood, the criminalization of any voluntary action is a violation of individual property interests...

In both the above examples, a conflict is created because of the state’s existence: if government schools and courthouses are owned by the state, and if we believe in the lie that "we are the government," then each of us will want governmental policy to reflect our desires and interests.
...
Taxation and eminent domain involve the forcible expropriation of private property. If a street mugger took your property in such ways we would refer to it as "theft," but our political conditioning will not permit such candid responses to confiscations by the state.
...
There is a causal connection between property ownership and responsibility for one’s decision making. As one who makes decisions over my own life and property, I am responsible for the consequences of my actions.

But to the degree the state preempts private decision making, it restricts an individual’s sense of responsibility for his or her actions. If the state insists upon controlling our behavior, is it not easy to see how individuals might come to believe that they are not responsible for their acts?
...
This important lesson was finally learned, late in life, by the noted Marxist, Max Eastman, who observed:

It seems obvious to me now – though I was slow coming to the conclusion – that the institution of private property, the dispersion of power and importance that goes with it, has been a main factor in producing that limited amount of free-and-equalness which Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution.”

Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.