Assignments for Next Week

Property Week Two Assignments

1. Monday January 30

 Casebook P.124-129; 131-133 (Armory; Bridges, Sharman, McAvoy); P. 138-140

2. Tuesday January 31 & Wednesday February 1

Casebook p. 213-235 (gift) [probably take 2 classes to cover this assignment]

 

 

 

Up For Grabs Film

 Pro Tip: Pay careful attention to what the Public Address announcer says hen she welcomes fans to the game.

More Student Views on Property and Economic Justice

 Thank you for sharing so many excellent thoughts about Property Rights and Social Justice. I am going to add a few more student excerpts. These will be the last student responses I share on the blog. I look forward to our class discussion this coming Monday. Let's start our discussion by looking at the comments of Student G, Student H & Student I below.

Student A:

Economic justice is the idea that creating a fairer economy will make it more successful. The basis for this is that increasing fairness would allow all individuals to thrive and, as a result, allow the economy to thrive. One big debate in regard to economic justice is whether one must forcibly give up their earnings for the benefit of another and whether this would create fairness. A should not have any legal claim to any of B's earnings and private property. This is because only B should have a claim to their earnings and private property. If B were to decide to voluntarily give A some of their earnings and allow them to use their private property, then that is their decision. However, B should not be legally forced to do so. At the same time, with respect to taxes, it can be seen how B providing A with a portion of their earnings can be beneficial to society as a whole. Yet, much debate exists around whether forcing B to give to A would be fair. Moving on, the government exists to protect and secure private property. The government should not exist to take and redistribute private property. The reason for this is because an individual works hard to own their property. If the government were able to take and redistribute private property, then this would take away the incentive of working hard to own private property and decrease fairness.

Student B:

My personal concept of economic justice is that there is some sort of equality in everyone’s ability to earn a living. People will not have the same opportunities, so justice comes from the ability for every individual to earn money in whatever legal capacity that comes from. Not everyone will take advantage of their opportunities, so maybe that is what can make economics seem unfair. I personally do not believe that justice is found by making A’s earnings equal to B’s just because A has more than B. B has no right to take earnings or property that have been legally obtained by A unless B has some superseding right. 

I believe that the government exists to take and redistribute private property and protect it when necessary. The government is there to protect private property rights, but there is a point where the public good outweighs private property rights. In such cases, the government may take and redistribute the land to better the public. However, we trust that the government will protect our private property from those who have no claim to it and those who damage it. There is a balance in the government’s relationship with our private property.

Student C:

I do not believe anyone has a fair share of someone else’s property. Everyone should be able to own real property and independently manage private property. However, everyone should also pay taxes commensurate with income and gross net worth. Like the annoying homeowner’s association fee, we pay for the maintenance of our community and society. The government exists because of taxpayer funding, and its law protects our interests in property, among other functions. If we did not fund our police departments or court system, we would have no recourse for crimes and legal disputes regarding private property. Realistically, without the law, there would be no way to establish private property other than personally protecting it and hoping others respect your ownership.

In my view, economic justice is ensuring everyone can live with dignity and respect, which necessitates that all persons have access to housing, food, and healthcare. Taxes should fund the provision of these services. My reason for this is two-fold. First, on the altruistic level, every human has a right to life. People should not have to pay for the privilege of staying alive and having their most basic needs met. The second reason is utilitarian. Taxpayers already bear the cost of poverty. Taxpayer dollars go to hospitals for emergency medical bills unpaid by those who cannot afford preventative care and those who are homeless and exposed to the elements. Taxpayer dollars go to jail fees and police costs for petty thefts and crimes of poverty. If we take preventative measures, the net cost imposed on taxpayers will be lessened and we can maintain everyone’s dignity.

Student D:  To me economic justice is a balance. Everyone should have the equal opportunity of financial freedom, but given our history I don't believe it is possible to have complete equality when it comes to income and wealth. We are not perfect and I don't think our society will ever create such a Utopia where that balance exists. I think those who are extremely wealthy have a duty, a responsibility to share among society. No one needs as much money as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, why not put their earnings to good use. Granted, both individuals have donated a large portion of wealth to charity such as the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation but there is still so much leftover. Again, Bill Gates has promised to give all his wealth to the foundation which I think is a very honorable thing to do, but we have yet to see it. I also think one who works hard and is successful should benefit from their hard work. But again some wealth is at such an extreme. Yes, they worked hard but a lot of it is also luck and timing and other individuals that helped them get there. My view conflicts here because I think wealth should be shared but also everyone has a right to what they earn.  

My view of private property tends to go back and forth with one another as well. Buying a house this past year has changed my view. I used to fully believe the amount of land one can buy should be regulated in some way. I mean who needs even 20 acres of land for just your house and enjoyment when you only need 1 acre to get everything you want. Why not use the rest for something good? But then I bought a house and boy do I like my private property. I like that its mine and no one should be on it unless we say so. Also, property taxes are insane. I am also a huge proponent of privacy. One owns their time and has a right to it. One owns their personal information and data and has a right to that. And, one owns their property and has a right to do what they want with it. But I also think society should do a better job at using and protecting land for the benefit of everyone. I'm not sure how that looks but it's a nice idea. 

Student E:

Like you, I am also a libertarian. If everyone owns something, then no one does. A good example of this is overfishing. According to articles I’ve read, international waters are the most overfished. Whales are the prime example. Their numbers have been depleted significantly because they were up for grabs by anyone and protected by no one. Perhaps this is the prime role of government – to protect resources (and their ownership) for future generations through common sense regulation.

I see private ownership as similar. At the heart of economic justice is incentive. Private ownership incentivizes hard work and care for land and chattels. Anything owned by the public is almost never cared for to the same degree as privately-owned property (especially in this country). Also, economic and technological advancements are driven by the desire to accumulate wealth. Economic justice is the ability to rise above poverty and focus on more than basic needs. The right to private ownership guarantees more people will live above the poverty line than any system that favors public property.

Student F: 

I understand economic justice as giving people what they deserve within a given social contract – particularly what material wealth or advantages to material wealth someone is entitled to. Justice is about establishing right relationships. In the case of economic justice, what right relationship a person or group has with access to the collective wealth of a society they are part of. Understanding what a person is entitled to I suspect should be measured by what they contribute to the commonwealth. 

I think human beings were created with the right of being stewards of the earth.  Part of being stewards will naturally involve individuals having the right to private ownership of property. Government exists to protect rights that are already there including private property rights. People entered into society to better approximate the natural law – a law that is evident by what is conducive to or hinders the well-being of an individual and their community.

Student G:

To be honest, I am incredibly torn on economic justice and private property. I am primarily conflicted because of my background. On one hand, I believe that people must be secure in the right to the fruits of their labor. No one (including the government) should be able to force you to give it to anyone else if you have legitimately attained it. I also struggle with this though, because I grew up in a single-parent household below the poverty line. It was not my parents’ fault for the situation we were put in, simply unfortunate circumstances. It is hard for me to justify people being allowed to accumulate mass wealth, that they may or may not have actually earned, while I have to pick and choose times to go to the doctor because I have no insurance. Sometimes I feel that wealth and private property should be distributed more equally, however I then realize how unethical it is to seize wealth from those that have legitimately accumulated it. It is not my parents’ fault for their situation but it is not the responsibility of others to fix it. I often feel myself weighing whether it is more unethical to take wealth from those who have plenty or allow those living in poverty to continue to suffer when at least some of their pain could be eased. I hope that this course will help me in answering these questions.

Student H: 

I believe that the proper role of government with respect to private property is the protection of the value of the property. This primarily should be the ability to own one's land and use it as the owner sees fit. However, in certain rare circumstances, I do believe eminent domain is justified, as long as the compensation and the reason is proper. Nevertheless, this should be a last resort and only for important community needs such as a new school. I do not believe that this power should be used as a means to take and redistribute to others, but as a last resort after doing everything possible to protect the property rights of the owner.

Student I:  Though a person in this country may have a right to acquire wealth and their own personal property, they also have a responsibility to contribute to the overall wellbeing of our country. To me, a fair system does not allow for a hoard of wealth for the top 1% of the population at the expense of the wellbeing of the 99%. There is, of course, a fine line between a country that fairly distributes wealth and a country that does not allow for freedom of personal property and social mobility. If the state takes an excess amount of a person's hard-earned income, it may take away an incentive of hard work which harms the wellbeing of the country overall.

      Though this may be the case, the fact of the matter is that some wealth in this country is not acquired through hard work. There are people who will work tirelessly throughout their life and may not see the same financial success as someone who was born into wealth. When is it fair to allow someone to reap the benefits of their labor and when is it fair to require them to give back to the country that allows them the freedom of personal property? Do people who make their own wealth earn their right to keep more of their money than someone who inherits wealth and must pay inheritance taxes? These are among the questions that I must research to gain a deeper understanding of my stance on economic justice. I hope to use this semester to learn more about the property laws of the United States and fill in the blanks in my knowledge of economic justice and the right to personal property.

 

One Last Student View

 Here is an excellent progressive view of economic justice and private property:

I think economic justice is a set of moral and economic principles that carry the ultimate goal of creating equal opportunities for all people to lead dignified, fulfilling, and sustainable lives free from concerns about their ability to meet basic needs. I think our country is extremely far from achieving widespread economic justice – while millions struggle to meet the basic needs of their families on a daily basis, a tiny minority hoards the majority of the country’s wealth and hides behind estate tax loopholes to avoid wealth redistribution.

 

I do think that one of the functions of the government is to take and redistribute private property.  This is because I believe that the government has responsibility to aid in the health and well-being of its citizens, especially its most vulnerable citizens (i.e., children, families, veterans, elderly, disabled, etc.).  I think there is a social, moral, and economic duty to invest in robust welfare and government programs, and ultimately, I think this investment creates a healthier and more sustainable society and economy for all of us. I think it is short-sighted and idealistic to suggest that we can achieve economic justice simply by shifting spending priorities – I think we need to take a serious look at the root causes of economic insecurity, and I believe the only way to make a sustainable change is through rigorous programs that address the underlying issues that contribute to poverty and economic instability.

 

One approach I believe would be an effective step toward achieving economic justice in the United States would be universal basic income (UBI) – a regular, guaranteed payment made to every citizen regardless of employment or economic status. This idea is often criticized for rewarding and incentivizing laziness, but that critique doesn’t account for the underlying causes and perpetuating factors of poverty and economic inequities. It is very possible in our economy to work very hard and have very little to show for it –it is also not uncommon for wealthy and privileged individuals to acquire incredible wealth without having to work themselves. I think a UBI as well as rigorous efforts to divert funds currently concentrated at the top of the wealth distribution would be an effective strategy to actually achieve some sort progress toward economic justice in the United States. I don’t think UBI would address the root causes of poverty, but I think it would provide enough alleviation to allow every citizen to achieve a standard of living above the poverty line and to allow the government to more effectively and sustainably work to target the root causes of poverty and economic instability (i.e., allow the government to respond rather than react to poverty crises).

 

Ultimately, I believe economic justice is about health, well-being, and basic needs and I think the government has a huge responsibility in achieving those goals through redistribution of private property. 

Up For Grabs Barry Bonds Baseball and First Possession Film

 

 

Remember, we will be having a double class session this Wednesday to view the film Up For Grabs and discuss Popov v. Hayashi. This is a fantastic movie about a first possession battle for an historic home run ball.

Selected Student Views on Property Rights and Economic Justice

 Below I am sharing a few student statements of their personal views of property rights and economic justice. I thought I might get a few more progressive statements, but so far the student views tend to be supportive of property rights. Here are a several samples:

1.

My personal concept of economic justice is based on the concept of personal responsibility and responsibility to care for fellow man. Economic justice begins with the foundation of personal property. If a man cannot retain the benefits of his labor it is unjust to force him to work for the sole benefit of another. Based on this foundation, the axiom “If any would not work, neither should he eat” is not a condemnation of the man that will not labor, but rather a protection for the man that will labor and ought to have the benefit of it. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 KJV. A has no “fair share” of B’s property or earnings because A has a right to retain the benefit of his labor. If B choses to help A out with what he has earned that is his choice, not a duty under law. This falls under the moral responsibility to do good and ought to be encouraged under law but not mandatory.

As noted by Jefferson, governments exist to ensure liberty. A government ensures the liberty of its people best by safeguarding their interests, including their earnings. Individuals that are allowed to profit from their own labor are more productive and innovative than those that labor for another’s wealth. While this benefits themselves, the resulting increase in private property benefits their country as a whole by creating increased opportunity for employment and greater overall wealth.  A government may request portions of each of its citizens' earnings to continue to provide for the general welfare of the population but to seek the welfare of only one section of society by selectively redistributing wealth defeats the fundamental concept of economic liberty.

2. 

Honestly, I do not have a set concept of economic justice. It is something that likely is always changing depending on the scenario. Generally, one should not have a share of another property or earnings, but there are likely exceptions, like taxes, that may serve a communal interest. This is a subjective view, of which I do not know enough to form an opinion, one person may think taxes are beneficial, and another may not. The law’s role is to enforce property rights if needed but, otherwise, it should stay out of people’s interest in property. It should only protect and secure private property but should enforce redistribution if required of it.

3. 

In my opinion, the government's role in private property should be one of protection. There are few greater rights than the right to ownership of property and this right should be protected fiercely. I believe that Party A has no fair claim to any portion of Party B's earnings or private property. The issue with this view is that it is easily misunderstood. It can come across as cold and unsympathetic to fellow persons, however, I do not believe that this is the case. If there was a person who out of necessity made use of my private property, I would have no issue with them. However, this is not because of any fair claim they had to my property. Necessity or not, the right to that property rests solely with me, however, because of basic human compassion and empathy for another person I have no problem allowing them to make use of my property. I believe that to have the perspective that the legislative purpose should be forceful redistribution or removal of private property for the idea of equity, removes the emphasis on human goodness and instead attempts to legislate a morality that I believe the majority of us already possess. Therefore, there is no beneficial purpose for the government's role in property ownership outside of attentive protection.

4.

Economic justice is the system that provides the structure for each to succeed in their individual endeavors. It provides guidelines that provide fair and equal opportunity for all, but it is up to the individual to make the best use of that opportunity. If B has diligently made the best use of opportunities given to him, he should be entitled to 100% of those earnings. If A seeks a share of earnings or private property, he must also work to acquire those through the opportunities given to him. Simply because B has more does not require him to distribute to others. B's focus, work, and effort resulted in goods that are B's to do with as he sees best. In a moral sense, he will want to share what he has acquired to help others, but that is not to be mandated by the law. The government's role is simply to protect and secure private property while providing a fair opportunity for all to acquire private property.

5. 

My view on economic justice is that it is something that may never be perfectly achieved. Unfortunately, we may never reach a point where every person, no matter their race, gender, sexual identity, or wealth, has a fair opportunity to create a life they want and that is also fair to everyone else. As much as I love the idea of fairness and success to go hand in hand in our economy, I do not think it is possible.

            My knowledge of private property and regulation by the government is slight, however, I think that regulation and constitutional rights of private property owners is a necessary to uphold. In regard to the government’s role on taking or protecting private property, I am more on the side of protection and that every person should have the right to own property if they choose. I also believe that owning private property shouldn’t be only to those of the middle to upper class, and that there should be more accessible options for those in lower class income families.

6.

My personal concept of economic justice is one I would like to consider “mildly reasonable.” In other words, I believe that while those who are extremely successful should absolutely have a right to most of their property, there is still a debt owed to society. Therefore, A’s fair share of B’s earnings could be 10 percent to 20 percent, with “A” being society as large. This solution is the only one I see as “mildly reasonable”, but that is the folly of all compromises. No compromise will ever make everyone happy, but it can always be a start that can improve society at large, as well as possibly helping the one who gives feel morally fulfilled.

            In terms of the role of law in respect to private property, it is a necessary field of arbitration and mediation in whatever disputes could happen between individuals. In addition, it can exist as an archive to help ensure that those who have private property do not have their rights intruded on. Moving from law to the government, I see it as an entity that can help redistribute private property but is also meant to protect property rights. The problem with seeing the government as having fully one use or another is that it takes away from the ability of government to serve the people it serves properly and fully. All in all, then, the ways I view law, government, and economic justice regarding private property revolve around this same concept of “mild reasonability” and I am looking forward to how those in class will view these ideas as well.

I hope many of you decide to share your views in class on Monday. We will spend maybe 20 to 30 minutes discussing the concept of property rights under our system of law and social justice.

My personal views are a work-in-progress. I am a small-government libertarian, but I have decided we need to do more to help families with children stay afloat. Thus, I have changed my mind about the minimum wage, and I support generous tax credits for children, school choice,  and other programs designed to encourage marriage and family formation. Much of this can be done without raising taxes by shifting spending priorities.