Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

This is another article on issues essential to the preservation of this nation as we have known it for 250 years. Ownership of one’s property is a key factor in the creation and prosperity of this nation. Private property ownership is currently under threat by those who either, intentionally or unintentionally, are attempting to destroy it. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the fact that private ownership of property was essential to liberty and freedom. Let’s examine why this was so important.

Looking back in history, it is very clear that ownership of property was for centuries the privilege of a chosen few. Vast estates, on which most people labored for food and shelter, were the norm in not only western countries but throughout all the continents. Philosopher John Locke, who had a strong influence on the Founding Fathers, believed that freedom cannot exist when people do not own or control their own property. To quote him, “The great and chief end therefore, of men’s uniting into Commonwealths…is the preservation of their property…and the legislature may not take from any man, any part of his property without his consent.” This includes taxation which is the mechanism by which most people lose their property. Property in this context does not mean just land, but more generally any possessions or wealth.

One of the most interesting factors in history is the contrast between the way North America and South America have developed over the centuries. Clearly, South America had access to more precious metal wealth in gold and silver during the early years of colonization than did North America. However, that advantage did not lead to the economic prosperity that has occurred in North America. What was the critical factor that permitted North America to advance far beyond South America? It was private property ownership. When South America was being colonized, large parcels of land were owned by Spanish aristocrats or by the Spanish government. Colonists were brought over from Spain and other countries to work the owner’s land and mines. Most of the colonists were men. Contrast this with the early settlers in North America who were given their own parcels of land to work and develop. This was similar to what happened in the western United States in the mid-1800s with the Homestead Act, where each settler was given 160 acres of land to farm. The great advantage of private land ownership is that the owners have a vested interest in hard work and initiative to develop that land since they reap the profits and are able to support their families and pass their wealth on to future generations. This notion of private ownership was also seen in small businesses. The importance of property ownership was manifested in the early years of this country where only land owners were permitted to vote, since it was assumed they had the greatest interest in the policies and laws of the country.

Over the years, especially in the twentieth century, it was increasingly the goal of most families to own their own homes. Home ownership did accelerate from the 1930’s onward. The ability of a middle class person to afford a home is the backbone of economic prosperity. Recently, this trend has diminished for several reasons, including the influx of immigrants and excessive government regulation. One factor of increasing concern is the slide towards Marxism, especially by some of the younger generations. Marxism is based on the idea of government ownership–not private ownership. Look at what the communist mayor of New York proposed in creating government owned food stores and expanding government owned housing projects. Rent control is an effective way of forcing private owners of rental property to flee the city. High taxation, generous social benefits, and aggressive government intervention deprive people of their ability to own private property and therefore become increasingly dependent of the government. This gradually deprives them of their freedom and increases the power of the government. Take a look at California as an example– the average home costs over $900,000 compared to the national average of $350.000. The middle class as we have known it cannot survive in California. That is the reason so many people are moving to other states.

So, the bottom line is this. We have to recognize where expanding social welfare programs leads and somehow get this message to younger people. Dependence on government handouts takes money from those who earned it and deprives all of us of our freedoms. Sending children to college in this day and age is getting to be anti-patriotic, given the indoctrination by leftist professors. Learning a useful trade and work skills is an increasingly viable option. Government college loans should be stopped. They only encourage indebtedness and useless majors that do not lead to careers and independence.