Doubts About the Sanctity and Inviolability of Private Property

Xuefeng

July 10, 2024

“Private property is sacred and inviolable” is a hallmark of developed capitalist countries. It is a sentiment shared by famous Western philosophers, thinkers, and sociologists. Some even equate private property with LIFE, suggesting that both are bestowed by heaven and thus need protection.

I support the view that “private property is sacred and inviolable,” as it is much more civilized than the brutal laws of the jungle. Any act of infringing upon someone else's property is a crime and a trampling on that person's dignity and LIFE. Without protection for private property, society would devolve into a state akin to the animal world, making it impossible for humanity to enter a civilized society.

However, I have doubts about what constitutes “private property.”

My understanding is that things a person is born with are considered “private property,” such as eyes, nose, limbs, and body. Everything else is public property.

Some might say that if someone catches a fish in a river, that fish becomes their private property. If someone harvests 400kg of wheat from one mu of land, that wheat is their private property. If someone builds a house in a certain place, that house is their private property. I agree with this perspective.

But let’s examine if these are truly private property: “A virtuous magistrate for three years, ten thousand taels of silver,” is this silver his private property? If a thief secretly steals $100,000 and uses it to build a villa, is that villa his private property? If someone forcefully takes over a coal mine and earns a billion, is that billion their private property? If a company manufactures and sells counterfeit drugs and earns ten billion, is that ten billion their private property?

Under the doctrine “All the land under heaven belongs to the king,” does this mean that everything in the world is the king’s private property?

“Here is the tree I planted, here is the road I built. If you want to pass, you must pay a toll.” If the tree and the road are the property of the person who built them, is charging a toll in line with the principle of “private property is sacred and inviolable”?

“Power comes from the barrel of a gun,” similarly, money comes from power, violence, trickery, extortion, and deception. Do the power and wealth derived from these methods count as private property?

“Private property is sacred and inviolable” is a cornerstone of civilization, a necessary condition for social development, and a vital factor in promoting productivity. However, the definition of private property must be clearly defined.

Land can be bought and sold, mineral resources can be bought and sold—can lakes and rivers also be bought and sold? If someone buys a piece of land, a mineral resource, or a body of water, does that make it private property? Can they prohibit others from using the water or catching fish from these resources? Is this also in line with “sacred and inviolable”?

If one day someone with extraordinary abilities claims the moon and then imposes a tax on moonlight for everyone on Earth, is this reasonable?

I ask those who advocate “private property is sacred and inviolable,” if you are married, is your spouse your private property or public property? If it is private property, does this mean that people can be considered private property, making slavery completely correct and reasonable? If it is public property, would you agree to your spouse being considered a public spouse?

The body is a person’s inherent private property and should be considered sacred and inviolable, right? So, if a prostitute chooses to use her body as she pleases, why interfere, stop, or even criminalize it? If even a person’s own body, which is an inherent private property, is not allowed to be freely arranged and is subject to moral condemnation and legal repression, isn’t this ridiculous and hypocritical in the context of “private property is sacred and inviolable”?

Absolute fairness is impossible. Absolute fairness hinders the development of social productivity and inevitably leads to widespread poverty and despair. But consider this: a farmer works hard all year but still struggles to make a living, while a financial speculator can earn tens of millions or even billions annually. Is this fair?

Stop proclaiming “private property is sacred and inviolable” so loudly. If you truly care about the public and the advancement of society, think more about how to ensure people’s well-being and happiness!

For those living in a dilapidated house with a worn-out quilt, you should not insist on the sanctity of your tattered house and quilt. Once the principle of “private property is sacred and inviolable” becomes a universal moral and legal standard, your decrepit house and quilt will be instantly obliterated. This is because you will not be involved in the making or enforcement of laws, and your descendants will be impoverished. Private property will have no relevance to you.