Thomas Orr

Private Property

Private property of the land is the major obstacle to justice and should be abolished. Real estate taxes are the most unfair way of taxation and should go away as well.

If this statement shocks you it is what I intended. Now, I will spend the rest of this section gradually explaining why there is nothing shocking about it.

It is not good to allow the natural resources like land to be owned by private individuals. It is not good to allow the free market forces to decide what the price is for "the privilege" of having a place to live.

Many people believe that the private property is the cornerstone of the capitalist system. Those people probably think that I hate capitalism. I would like to explain that I do not hate capitalists or the capitalism. I praise the capitalism and the free market when we talk about producing goods and wealth. I condemn capitalism when we talk about making money by manipulating the free market and cheating people out of their money.

I do not think that people should be prevented from making as much money as they wish and can. However, I think that the public needs to be protected by restricting what the money can buy. Again, this is not a shocking or revolutionary statement. It is a trivial statement. Even today no matter how much money you are willing to spend you cannot buy the right to kill another person, at least in theory. You can not buy a political influence or a politician, at least in theory.

Liberals and conservatives alike agree that in a capitalist system how much money one makes is not determined by how much one "deserves". In my opinion in a capitalist system how much money one makes depends on several factors listed here in their order of importance.

An ability and talent for unscrupulously taking advantage of opportunities and people
Specific social skills allowing pleasing people of importance and bullying other to compliance
Luck
Hard work

I agree with conservatives that applying moral standards to the business ethics is fruitless and harmful. Businesses should be judged solely for how well they follow the laws and not by how "noble" they behave. It is our responsibility to ensure that the laws we have do the job of keeping the capitalist system under control. After all, capitalism is only as good as it helps people, not the other way around. Speaking of which, the corporate propaganda in the past at least used to address people, "We provide jobs for the people." Not any more though. In the wake of outsourcing and sending jobs overseas people become something else in the propaganda speaches, "We benefit consumers. We benefit shareholders." However, it takes money to be a consumer or shareholder. If you don't have a job you don't have money and you are neither consumer nor shareholder. You are still "people" though. Or maybe not.

By consenting to the principle that in a capitalist system how much money one makes is not determined by how much one deserves I have to demand, which is only logical, that the power of the money be limited and controlled. One's right to have a place to live cannot depend on how fortunate and lucky one is in the capitalist game. Money is not and cannot be distributed fairly. Basic human rights including the right to have a place to live should be.

When I ask a person who is shocked by my proposal to explain why the shock I frequently hear the answer that one does not wish for a bureaucrat to decide where he or she can buy a house and live. While I agree that allowing the bureaucracy to control the real estate market is far from perfect it is still far better than abdicating that responsibility and allowing the free market to decide.

We allow the free market to control prices of certain goods so we can have better and cheaper goods. This however, does not apply to the land. Capitalism does not have a credit for "manufacturing" the land. So why do you think it should control how the land is used and distributed?

Some people say that ownership of the land is necessary so the land can be "improved". As far as I can tell the capitalist ownership of the land brings mostly destruction. It produces huge bills that the rest of us have to pay. The real improvements of the land like water and gas pipes have nothing to do with the land ownership and are made by companies that do not own the land. The real improvements of the land like buildings, tunnels and bridges do not require the land ownership either. The real improvements of the land like forest and park management can be done by private companies without the need for them to own the land.

Private property of the land is an illusion anyway. Some communities even regulate how tall a fence if any can be built on a property you own. Strangely enough those same communities can hardly prevent super rich from contaminating the land with poisons or ripping the land from trees and destroying natural habitats that we all need preserved. If you do not like the idea of abolishing the private property ask your governemnt why it eroded it so much that what is left are mostly illusions and liabilities?

Private property od the land kills the freedom, too. There still exist parts of the world without borders and fences where people live very traditional lives of herding animals. There are no wondering restrictions there, only the beautiful nature. There is a sense of freedom and beauty when riding a horse, or even a truck, in such a scenery. That freedom and beauty is gone in most of the "civilized" parts of the world.

Also, the world would be much safer place if people owned less. Most of the crimes committed in our societies have something to do with people trying to rob other people of their possessions. Where people own little there is less temptations and opportunities for crime. But this is a different story having more in common with consumerism than with the laws. First, we need to change the bad laws. Only then we can start thinking about helping people with breaking the bad habits.