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.
