Monday, February 21, 2011

Private Property Ownership In The New World, and the Dangerous Advancement of Progressivism

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In Britain, during the era of the American Colonies, the land in Europe belonged to the King and his Lords. Property ownership was virtually non-existent because the land was all a part of the king's realm. In the New World, a part of what made America a grand experiment, in addition to the idea of self-rule, was the concept of property ownership. Understanding how essential this was to the make-up of the American experience, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

In short, our freedom hinges on the right to own private property.

The concept of private property rights over collective ownership is the core of the thinking of enlightened thinkers such as Adam Smith, as well as Founding Fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. In the early settlements of the English Colonies the benefits of private ownership was quickly recognized, and appreciated. Originally, the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies tinkered with collective ownership, and the attempts at what would today be considered "socialism" failed. In the Plymouth colony, for example, an attempt was made to rely on Christian principles to induce hard work for the communal good, but the colony was on the verge of starvation, until it switched to a private property system in 1623. Within a short period after the change, the lives of the inhabitants were richly improved.

Collective ownership, like any other concept that runs in line with the policies of today's American liberalism, fails whenever it is tried. Communal systems tend to lead to perverse incentives with regard to the use of scarce resources, and insecurity with regard to investment in the improvement of those resources. In the communist countries of the past century, where less than one percent of the agricultural land was held in private plots, the collective farms suffered from poor output. The few private plots consistently outperformed the collective farms.

In underdeveloped countries, where there is an insecurity of ownership and the constant threat of predation by public and private actors, the result is also not very prosperous, leaving millions of people to live in poverty.

Historical evidence provides countless examples of the importance of private property rights, and how a population that largely owns property, and keeps more of what they produce, promotes a vibrant and prosperous society. The economics in these societies that promote private property ownership, while limiting the government in its scope of regulatory powers, thrive dramatically.

The Founding Fathers understood the importance of private property ownership, and sought to protect property rights throughout the text of the U.S. Constitution. In the Fifth Amendment, for example, it reads: “No person shall. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Those words echo the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson agreed with the philosophies of British philosopher, John Locke, on this issue. Locke believed that men could be free only if their lives, liberty, and property were protected by the rule of law - and in the case of the United States of America, the rule of law is the law of the land: the U.S. Constitution.

Jefferson envisioned the United States to be a republic of freeholding egalitarian farmers, and in the early years of America that was indeed the case. The land was plentiful and labor scarce, and the large majority of free men were farmers working the land they owned.

Progressives in the political scene explicitly repudiate the Founding Father’s vision of limited government, and widespread private property ownership. Liberals in government argue that government needs to redistribute property, to take money from one group of citizens to help others, and to regulate economic activity in ways that are unconstitutional. They proclaim that The Constitution is an outdated document, or that because of their erroneous interpretation of a handful of clauses in the Constitution (Commerce, General Welfare, Supremacy), they can do whatever they wish under the authority of the federal government. Leftists argue that the complex industrial society that we have created cannot be properly managed by ordinary citizens without government guidance and assistance. They act, they claim, in the interest of the people, and their greater benefit.

Most patriots argue that the liberal left acts to limit individualism, and expand the scope of the federal government, because progressives desire more power, and control over the people. They wish to advance their liberal agenda, and ultimately progress to a new society where the ideas of "reason" and "pluralism" becomes the societal norm, while global unity ushers in a new age of cooperation and utopia.

The aims of the liberal left may very well be in line with the above assumptions, but the real desire to limit the private ownership of property, from real estate to firearms, is because the liberal left politicians fear revolution.

The tighter the dictators around the world tighten their grip, the more the people react in protest. We are witnessing at this very moment protests against ruthless leaders throughout the world. Unfortunately, in those cultures, the likelihood that these demonstrations will lead to free societies is not very good. The opportunistic nature of Islamism, or other despotic ideologies, is likely to usher in new governments that not only do not foster freedom, but may be more oppressive than the dictatorships they replaced.

America, however, is the exception to the rule. Our society is based on principles of liberty set forth by the U.S. Constitution.

Revolution plunged France into chaos and violence multiple times, with the most glaring example being the French Revolution. Revolution transformed Russia in 1917-18 to a communist regime that stood for most of the century. In the violence that followed World War I, Marxist revolts broke out in cities as productive and sophisticated as Munich and Budapest. Mussolini’s fascists marched on Rome, transforming Italy into a fascist state. Through revolution, Marxist socialist parties gained millions of adherents in the expanding electorates of Europe.

Progressives have always known that America is unique, and a Marxist revolution would not only fail to take place in America, but that if socialism was injected too quickly, a revolution defending the ideals of liberty may break out. The 2nd Amendment ensures that the American populace is armed, and prepared to fight back against a tyrannical government should one rise into power. America is also largely an urban country with an increasingly private industrial economy. In addition to all of that, the United States is largely a place where people own property - or at least they did.

Alexis de Tocqueville, impressed by America when he visited in 1830, feared for America's future, pointing out a danger he called “soft despotism,” in which a seemingly benevolent government would channel citizens into docile obedience like a herd of sheep - slowly changing the culture into one of dependence upon the government through a method of creeping incrementalism.

As the population in the United States has grown, most farmers still own their farms, but most city people do not own a significant amount of property. Big city residents tend to rent, rather than own their homes. In the larger cities residents have also come to become dependent upon the government for welfare checks and food stamps.

Those that do own property don't even truly own it, thanks to property taxes.

With the advent of the recent economic crisis, liberalism made its move. Today's liberal democrats came to power with an assumption that in these times of economic distress Americans would be more willing to be supportive of big government programs.

The Progressives and their progeny were wrong, and the emergence of the Tea Party embodies the revolution they feared.

Whether the intention of the left is out of benevolence, hunger for power, or fear of a patriotic uprising, the expansion of government is now advancing at an incredible pace. No longer acting in a precautionary manner as they have in the past, the progressives are reaching as far as they can to make the federal government paternalistic. They figure if they give the masses work relief through extended unemployment insurance, government funded health insurance, credit protection, mortgage relief, work to save Social Security, bail out the banks and auto companies, and continue to provide a floor on wages and prices while working to expand the size of the labor unions, eventually the people will grow soft and comfortable as dependents of the government, and the likelihood of revolt will lessen.

Property rights are a thing of the past, according to those that adhere to Marxist teachings, and to a great degree, they are right. Property taxes have eliminated the true idea of private property ownership, giving the government the authority to seize the property if the citizen does not fulfill property tax obligations. The progressive liberals argue that economic freedoms were unimportant anyway, because ordinary people, lacking property, and dependent upon the government's entitlement programs, don’t really have much economic freedom anyway. Besides, owning property and enjoying true liberty will be forgotten, as far as the liberal left is concerned, if the government claims that everything they have to offer is a "fundamental right" of the citizen. The people will comply with expanding governmental control if the political elite simply guarantees people education, healthcare, food, housing, and promotes heavy regulation against those nasty ol' rich people and their obscene wages and bonuses.

The Democrat Party has become more concerned with economic redistribution, rather than economic growth.

As with the progressives of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's day, today's liberal left progressives believe that capitalism has failed, and economic growth is a thing of the past.

Today's Democrats believe they have progressed toward the goals Roosevelt again, and now it is time to go for the gold. However, they are puzzled by the adverse public reaction to their programs.

Conservatives, aligned with the Tea Party Movement, have taken control of the House of Representatives, and are working to eliminate the liberal dream of expanded government while trying to cut taxes, cut government spending, limit the powers of labor unions, and reform entitlement programs.

An attempt to combat the incremental workings of progressivism appeared in the 1970s when politicians embraced deregulation. Backing off federal regulations reduced huge costs in transportation and communication. The result was a reduction in the costs of life’s necessities, which enabled more Americans to accumulate significant wealth over a working lifetime. However, the expansive nature of government overcame that short moment of the setback of liberalism, and we are now in a moment where heavy regulation is on the increase, and where the liberal left once again encourages a culture of dependence. It is the “soft despotism” of which Tocqueville warned us about 175 years ago.

Despite the onslaught of leftist policies, the emergence of the Tea Party Movement, like the era of deregulation, is working to push back the oppressive progressive strategy. Millions of Americans have gotten involved in political activity. The language of the Founding Fathers is rising above the madness, resonating with clarity as the American people demands we return to the Founder’s insistence that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Tea Party holds these truths to be self-evident.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: