Kinsley High School

Kinsley, Kansas

Teacher: Dr. Galen Boehme

Obtaining Liberty and Freedom through Private Property

By Cindy Brake

12^th Grade

Handling the issue of private property and freedom involves having more individual responsibility, caring more about politics, and understanding the need for rules.

Key terms in this essay include individual responsibility, private property, rules, and freedom. “Individual responsibility” means caring for ourselves and what is ours. “Private property” is the possessions that we own. “Rules” are regulations that people must follow. “Freedom” is the liberty of people from oppression.

To understand why investing in private property is crucial to our freedom, we must understand the problem. There needs to be more involvement of the community on a private level. The community needs to take responsibility [for] the programs and facilities that they want to run. Right now, the public pays for programs through government taxes, but we do not think about the cost. The government accepts too many matters that really belong to the
people.  We, the public, expect too much from the government. When something goes wrong, we expect the government to come up with a plan and money and fix it. What we may not understand is that this planning takes time and extra money from our pockets.  An example of this would be the welfare situation in Missouri. Missouri has had to cut thousands of people off and now they are suffering.  When we rely on the government too much, we lose our sense of liberty.

Gaining a sense of liberty comes by privately owning property. Property that is privately owned would be better cared for and maintained. This is because people take better care of what belongs to them, but disregard what is somebody else’s.  An example of this would be if I owned something, I would want to take good care of it because I paid for that property with money that I have actually earned. If it was not privately owned I would not care for it as much because it is not just my responsibility. Private property also motivates an impressive degree of honesty because people want their property to be the best. One would not lie about his own private property. We need to think more about private property instead of government-owned property because then people communicate more honestly.

After we examine the problem, we must then make a plan to overcome this problem of losing our freedom due to lack of personal property. The plan begins with stressing private property. The owner of the private property will likely accept more responsibility for maintenance and support. According to Reed’s principle #2, a person will care for what belongs to him, but what belongs to no one becomes disregarded, because caring for private property produces pride. Everyone wants to have the best property which drives competition for the best looking property.

Three key components exist for this plan. Component number one is to stop relying on the government so much. America was founded by people who wanted individual freedom from the government. We are giving up our freedom to the government when we allow the government to own most of the property. Thomas Jefferson said, “The natural tendency is for government to grow and liberty to retreat.” We need to learn when to take care of ourselves instead of relying on government programs. Component number two consists of not showing too much compassion to people. Showing too much compassion can lead us to weakness. Before we show compassion, we have to think on a realistic level instead of an emotional level. We have to think about the long-term results. This means that sometimes we have to show limited compassion. Component number three consists of learning from mistakes made by others. The main example of this is Rome. Rome was the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world where everyone wanted to live. The state gradually became the prime source of income. The government then had to impose high taxes on the people to finance all of its programs. This imposition drove businesses into bankruptcy. Right now, America is on the same path as Rome was. We cannot ignore this fact. George Santayana, a philosopher, said, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.” We do not have to repeat this history if we stop what we are doing right now and start investing in private property.

After we make a plan, we have to implement the plan. The overall plan for implementation is to become involved in politics and know what is good for everyone. Three components exist to implement this plan. Component number one is to vote. When we vote, we show that we care about what is happening around us. Voting is a right that we have that should be cherished. We do have a say in who is elected to make vital decisions for us. Component number two consists of understanding the rules and the need for rules. Without rules, everything would become pure chaos. Too many rules put pressure on people and then no one is motivated to do anything. Our goal is to find the midpoint between too many rules and no rules at all. Component number three consists of keeping your freedom and liberty. A sure way to start achieving this goal is investing in private property and be more independent.

The overall goal that is to be reached after implementation is for people to start investing more into private property. One result would be that we would receive more freedom. Another result will be that people will care for their property with greater pride. People will take pride in their own personal property. A possible drawback may also exist. This drawback would be that more rules would come about. The government may feel that we are becoming too independent. The way of overcoming this drawback is for everybody to follow the rules and cooperate and maybe everything will work out for the best.

In conclusion, if we start investing more in private property, we will have a better understanding of liberty and freedom.

Answers To Questions Triggered by the Required Reading

Tibor Machan – “Welfare State on the Street Where You Live”

Q1- Why does Machan use “steal” in his statement: “Private property solves this problem, but was abandoned a long time ago when taxes reached the point where we can steal our way to being provided with all sorts of things we desire, never mind thinking about paying for them or long-range budgeting.”?

Machan deliberately uses the word “steal” because it is an emotional word. When we think of stealing, we think of consequences. Machan wants us to think of the consequences of using up too many resources. We have to know that a difference exists between need and desire. If we use up all of our resources to achieve what we desire, then what happens when we need something and nothing more is left to give? The starting place for reform is private property. With private property, it then becomes the owner’s job to care for and maintain that property. It is the owner’s own personal responsibility. Perhaps, with this, we will all start to think more of what we need instead of what we want. Machan is stressing ethics, what is right and wrong. We know that stealing is wrong, but it is accepted anyway.

Q2- Machan said: “For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.” Give two examples of this from your personal experience.

This statement has merit in the two examples that I have. One example is our senior class concession stands. Every student has an opportunity to sign up to work and receive points. I, as a member of the basketball team, always choose that last shift knowing that that shift is the only time I can work. I am not the only one who signs up for that shift, but am usually the only student there with our class sponsors and parent sponsors. Since these concession stands are a way to earn money for our class, one would expect more students to show up for the time they signed up for. Instead, more students are complaining about the points they do not have. Another example is the school service club. When we have meetings, it seems as though nobody is paying attention to the volunteering ideas that the sponsor and president have. Some people do care, but the rest are just there because they want to get out of class. Needless to say, our club did not achieve much this year.

Q3- Do you agree with Machan that “…everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.”? Give and object example of this.

Machan’s statement has merit in the example that I have. Growing up in a family of 12, I discovered that the more people that a family has, the less defined are roles. If our family was made up of less people, our roles would likely be more clearly defined. With many people living in one house, it can become messy. One person told to do some chores will just pass it off to another person. If one person does not step up and say that he will do it, then the chore will not get done until everyone is made to do it. By then, the mess is very big. Aristotle had this problem in his day. Obviously, the issue still remains. Machan is telling us that we need to take action now.

Lawrence Reed – “Are We Going the Way of Rome?”

Q4- State Kershner’s First Law. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Kershner’s first law says “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” I agree with this law, especially in the case of the path of Rome. Rome’s people depended on the central government so much that they lost complete hold and responsibility on their own private property. I see the same pattern in our American society. The people want the government to provide so much. The government then taxes the people to help pay for certain programs. Sometimes the taxes become too high that businesses begin to go bankrupt. If we do not put a stop to this, we, as America, can become like Rome did. We should not rely on the government so much that our own personal responsibility becomes non-existent.

Q5- What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?

The industry that was first taken over by the government in both ancient Rome and the USA was the transportation industry. In Rome, it was particularly shipping. In the USA, the industry was specifically railroads. People were relying on the government too much for income. The government then had to make money somehow. Since all goods move by transportation, the government started taxing imports. When taxes became so high the businesses could not survive and then went bankrupt. Bankruptcy then led the industry of transportation to be taken over by the government.

Q6- Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation? Explain.

Cheapened money is the cause of inflation. The demands on the Roman government were becoming too massive that the government needed more money. The government then decided to cheapen and debase the money to help pay for expensive programs. The denarius, the Roman coin, then became nothing of value. America, later on, followed this example, taking all of the silver out of its coins. With this cheapened money, prices skyrocketed, savings were eroded, and people became angry and frustrated.

Q7- How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome’s economy?

The Edict of 301 established a system of comprehensive wage and price controls, and was enforced by the penalty of death. The Roman government regulated the prices of everything. When people did not follow the price guidelines that the government had made, they were put to death. The people decided to stop trading because they were not receiving reasonable prices for their goods. With no goods coming in, the Roman economy could not thrive.

Dwight R. Lee- “Liberty and Individual Responsibility”

Q8- Lee claims that individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for what? Explain.

Lee says that we could be “entirely independent of others” except for scarcity. Scarcity is what brings us all to interact with one another. With scarcity, we have competition and cooperation. If we all had everything that we wanted, we would be free of one another. We would not have to interact with anybody else. When we interact, we have rules of social conduct. Without scarcity, no such rules would exist. No ethics would exist either. Our behavior would become destructive instead of productive.

Q9- Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.

Lee is saying that with too many rules, nobody will be motivated to do anything productive. No cooperation would exist either. Too many rules put pressure on people. With too many rules, some people are bound to break them. With this situation, rules become useless. Lee also says that having no rules leads to destructive behavior. People would use force to achieve what they want. In both of these settings, no freedom would exist. We have to find a midpoint between too many rules and no rules at all.

Q10- Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?

Private property is crucial to freedom because it puts more responsibility on the individual. We have to stop relying on the government for so much. Expanding the role of government takes away from individual responsibility. Expanding the government too much weakens the rule of private property. We have to understand that the foundation that our liberty and freedom stand on is fragile. We have to have individual responsibility to make it strong. Making the foundation stronger protects our freedom and liberty. This all starts with the concept of private property.

Lawrence Reed’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee

Q11- Argue both pro and con that in his testimony Lawrence Reed was advocating compassion and aid for the poor.

Before one can argue pro and con that Reed’s testimony shows compassion, we must understand key terms. The first of those terms is compassion. “Compassion” means sorrow, sympathy, or pity. Two parties exist in compassion. One is the giver, who is more abundant. The second is the receiver, who is more destitute. Another key term is “aid,” which means money, services, or intangibles. Aid is the object that passes between the giver and receiver. “Poor” is a relative term. One person may define poor differently than another.

Pros and cons exist in Reed’s testimony that concern compassion and aid for the poor. One pro is that we have to be sure of what we are encouraging (Principle #4). We cannot give out aid to causes that are not in the best interest of people. A con is that the government should not support the mediocrity of values. The government should try motivating people, instead of just giving these people aid. Another pro is that compassion involves all people (Principle #3). We should think of long-term effects instead of short-term effects. A con is that we should focus on the rational instead of the emotional. We have to take time to think solutions through. The emotional solution may seem good at the time, but as time passes, one might find that it was not a good solution. One last pro is that ethics surpasses economics (Principle #1). We show compassion for others instead of worrying about our own wealth. Another con is that poor people in a free market enterprise are always going to exist. It is a continuous cycle.

In conclusion, we must limit our compassion. If we keep giving and giving, then the receiver will never learn to stand on his own. Having too much compassion can lead one to weakness. We have to have tough compassion, which is limited compassion. How much compassion to show takes time, a learning process. We can help someone for so long, and then it is that person’s turn to take what we have taught him and go on from there.

Q12- “If people are free, they will not earn equal incomes; conversely, show me a people who have equal incomes and I will show you a people who are not free.” Explain in your own words Mr. Reed’s meaning.

Reed is saying that people are different. Everyone has different talents and abilities. People have different ways of doing tasks. If people are free to do whatever they want, then some may be motivated to make money and others may be lazy and make less money or none. Or perhaps, money is not a factor for some people. Some people may just be motivated and not care how much money they earn. If people did earn equal incomes, they will spend or save their money differently. Some may invest, some may save, or some may just go blow it on a really expensive item. It all depends on the person.

 Back