Degrees of Ownership

How much do you own something? I mean something that’s yours alone, absent partners or other co-owners. Something you either created yourself, or took possession of via the fruit of your labor (i.e. bought).

That question popped into my head as I read a proposed law in New York City that would debar landlords from running criminal background checks on prospective tenants.

New York City Council Majority Leader Keith Powers, one of the bill's advocates, explains:

Discriminating against our fellow New Yorkers for past convictions — after they serve their time — is an unfair lifelong punishment. Housing is a fundamental right.

On the one hand, it is certainly true that our government often punishes in perpetuity by continuing to abridge some the rights of the convicted after they've served their time. The right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, the right to possess firearms, and certain rights of association are among those often still abridged even after one has paid one's debt to society via fines and incarceration. Some do get restored in some jurisdictions, but oftentimes that involves the ex-convict having to petition for restoration.

On the other hand, housing is not a right - ‘fundamental’ or otherwise. Nothing that involves the coercion of others can be deemed a right. Such are often dubbed “positive rights,” but I reject use of the “r” word in that fashion as a cynical attempt to piggyback a bad thing on a good thing. They are coercive entitlements, they are the government using force to give my labor - either directly or via the medium of exchange that we call money - to someone against my will.

I have no right to live in a room or apartment or house that you own. I can contract to live in that space by paying you rent, and once we've entered into such a contract, the property is temporarily mine, subject to whatever contractual terms we agree upon.

At least that’s how it works under principles of liberty, where we each own ourselves and the fruits of our labor.

Reality in America stands quite apart from that, however.

Yes, I can own a residence, and have exclusive use of it, and debar others from entering it, and avail myself of the law enforcement system should someone trespass or damage it. But, to maintain ownership of that apartment, I have to pay taxes to the government, and if I fail, the government will take that residence from me.

Such taxes are defensible… up to a point: Government "services" that residence, to varying degrees depending on location, and to the extent that taxes are "user fees," i.e. charges for services provided, it's reasonable to be expected to pay them. That said, a lot of what’s collected in property taxes gets spent on things that don’t pass the fee-for-service test, so caution is warranted in “conceding” the right to tax property - where the money goes is a fundamental part of the calculus.

Those services aside, however, the government's involvement in what I do with my property should be limited to protecting others' actual rights. Can I run raw sewage from my home onto my neighbor's lawn? Nope - that's a trespass, even apart from laws that prohibit such action. The enforcement of property rights issues is a legitimate role of government even in minarchist structures.

Again, this is how things would work in a truly free society.

The reality is quite different. I can let someone flop on my couch, but I might find that the government prohibits me from telling him "get out" after a period of time. I can rent out a room or a residence I own, but many of the terms of that contract are not in my control. My right to freely use and peacefully enjoy my property diminishes under certain conditions and uses, and in some places, even squatters, who never contracted with landlords in the first place, enjoy substantial protections from enforcement of property rights (i.e. eviction).

That conditional ownership applies to almost everything. If I grow a tomato, it's mine to do with as I wish... but even there it depends. If I eat it, then it was 100% mine. Same if I give it away. But, if I look to sell it, depending on where I do, I'm now subject to rules that restrict my ability to do so, even to someone who doesn't care about those rules in offering to buy it from me. If I grow a lot of tomatoes, the rules that affect my right to sell what is mine expand, and in some places, I won't be able to sell some of my tomatoes, even to people who'd want to buy them (e.g. Florida had a rule mandating shape conformity of for-retail tomatoes until recently).

One basic precept of liberty is, "that which I can give away for free, I should be allowed to sell." If you want to know how un-free our society is, consider to how few goods and services that precept applies.

Degree of ownership also depends on location. New York City landlords have their rights abridged far more severely than property owners in many other jurisdictions. Local restrictions and mandates on businesses vary widely across the US.

Many otherwise-liberty-minded folks support all sorts of infringements on ownership, in the name of "protecting the public" or similar rationale, and it is beyond certain that such will remain part of the law and our society forever. This puts the lie to the "purity" straw man, wherein those who like regulations dismiss efforts toward deregulation with absolutist rebuttals, as in "you want no regulations, and so you want people to die." These aren't serious responses, and they don't deserve serious engagement. The real question is when government goes too far in diminishing your ownership of your stuff.

I'd argue, "almost always." And I'd be right.

Alas, the latest iteration of "what's yours is mine" socialism is in ascendance in places like New York City, where such nonsensical folderol as "housing is a fundamental right" is believed with utter conviction.

John Stossel recently ran a bit about how collective farming nearly killed the Pilgrims. The clash between human nature and collectivist behavior, i.e. "the tragedy of the commons," long predated Marx and Engels and their socialistic delusions. We are wired toward ownership, and societies that undermine ownership impose hardship and privation on their citizens.

Alas, the lure of Other People's Money and Other People's Stuff is an eternal siren song, so people vote in politicians who promise to give both to them along with the promise that it's a "free lunch." No such thing - taking from others, apart from being theft, denies them the benefit of the fruit of their labor. Show me a socialist, and I'll show you someone who’s happy to use government force so that he can work less and get more.

---

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), please hit that “like” button to let me know, please share any article you like wherever you roam the Internet, and  please recommend the blog to your friends.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.

Thank you, again, for your support!

Peter.