I recently debated with a colleague about whether or not young people still believe in the right to private property as a core democratic value. I argued that this all depends on how deeply an individual is willing to follow the philosophical logic.
If the first thing that comes to one’s mind is a sign, which reads, “private property: no trespassing” in the middle of a pristine wilderness, thereby declaring the fact that the land is off limits of hikers, that individual probably develops a negative first impression about the meaning of property rights.
As an environmentalist and an outdoors enthusiast, I’ve been faced with this frustratingly misguided and litigious mentality before, and naturally it momentarily blinded me to the wisdom and logic of the right to private property. If, on the other hand, we look more deeply into the value of private property, we see that it has many benefits to civilization when backed up by the rule of law.
For example, private property, such as a domicile, allows us to generate collateral when we apply for a loan. Suddenly property seems like an inalienable right. That right would seem especially precious if the government knocked on our door to tell us that the building we just purchased will be commandeered for the public good, and we will be compensated at below market-value price. In countries weak on democracy credentials, an individual would be lucky to receive below market-value compensation for that building. A country like that stifles its own economic prosperity through its lack of democracy.
I don’t believe that most young people are against private property as a fundamental right. Deep down inside they all probably recognize that private property is a part of our democratic foundation. If it seems like youth or other demographic groups don’t believe in private property, it probably has to do with the way this fundamental human right has been packaged and the psychological associations people make based on cases like the “private property” sign in the middle of the wilderness, or current events. In a generation jaded by greed like we’ve seen from some corporate governance failures, it is no wonder that young people and some political parties often feel hostility toward wealth and private property.
On that note, I recently came across a defense of property rights from what may at first seem like an unlikely source: Thich Nhat Hanh, a well known Buddhist monk, activist, poet, and defender of human rights. In number 13 of his “Fourteen Precepts for Engaged Buddhism,” Hanh writes, “Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others…” These might be words of wisdom not only for those that feel uneasy about the inalienable “rightness” of private property, but also for authoritarian leaders in countries like Uzbekistan, Burma, Zimbabwe, and Cuba… just to name a few places where people are too often powerless to defend their private property.
Published Date: May 30, 2008