Property Liberty

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"Libertarians come in different stripes, and the differences largely depend on their foundation. Some have their origin in the peculiar Anglo-American tradition of grounding liberty in property. Some others see liberty as a civic right guaranteed by the Constitution. The American Civil Liberty Union, for example, seeks to defend and preserve the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Laws of the United States. The rights to due process, to equal treatment under the law, and other Constitutional rights are based on membership—a member of the political/civic community.

This civic tradition of liberty, however, has been largely overshadowed by a property-based view of human freedom. This tradition of libertarianism believes that liberty is control over one’s property. It believes that ownership is an absolute right.

In this property-based notion of liberty, one could argue that even deeper than the desire for self-control is the fear of others. When one remembers that this view of liberty developed in the context of the enslavement of millions of Africans for economic gain, one can imagine why early libertarians were afraid. In Thomas Jefferson’s state of Virginia, for example, 40% of the population was slaves when he was writing the Declaration of Independence. What could be more important for privileged whites in such a situation than the control of their “property”?

One can perceive a similar fear in many libertarians today. I would hope that they would recognize that there is a security in membership not found in ownership, a security that allows individual’s to disagree with each other about rights and responsibilities—about our civil liberties. It is a disagreement, however, that does not divide a community into haves and have-nots, but into different points of view about how we should develop individual/community relationships. It seems to me that we could more effectively address the issues we face today if we explored them together as members of a civil society rather than as haves and have-nots in a commercial society." (