Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Why property helps the poor
One of the most persistent myths foisted on society by the political left is that property rights benefit mainly the rich and powerful.
Steven Hill, West Coast director of the liberal Center for Voting and Democracy, aptly expressed this misconception in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "The point is that the Bill of Rights and Constitution were really there to guarantee the property rights of the rich and the rich wannabes."
The nation's inequalities, he added, "are a direct result of - not in spite of, but because of - the priority given by the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution to protect the private property of rich individuals and wealthy corporations over basic human rights."
Yet as a recent Michigan court ruling makes clear, property rights are not primarily about protecting the "rich and rich wannabes."
They are, first and foremost, about protecting those without political power from those with power.
That this sounds counterintuitive only reinforces how far the nation has traveled from the ideas embraced by the founders.
Consider this defense of property rights by William Pitt, the British prime minister in the late 1700s and early 1800s: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail. Its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
That was - and remains - a wonderfully radical idea.
Steven Hill, West Coast director of the liberal Center for Voting and Democracy, aptly expressed this misconception in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "The point is that the Bill of Rights and Constitution were really there to guarantee the property rights of the rich and the rich wannabes."
The nation's inequalities, he added, "are a direct result of - not in spite of, but because of - the priority given by the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution to protect the private property of rich individuals and wealthy corporations over basic human rights."
Yet as a recent Michigan court ruling makes clear, property rights are not primarily about protecting the "rich and rich wannabes."
They are, first and foremost, about protecting those without political power from those with power.
That this sounds counterintuitive only reinforces how far the nation has traveled from the ideas embraced by the founders.
Consider this defense of property rights by William Pitt, the British prime minister in the late 1700s and early 1800s: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail. Its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
That was - and remains - a wonderfully radical idea.
