Private Property and the Common Good
You say private property is an imperative of
human nature.
I’ve already cited Leo XIII. It’s the only
rational way to allocate resources. If
people aren’t allowed to keep the fruit of their labor, they’ll have little
incentive to produce. Private property rationalizes production and increases
well-being.
If private property is that central to being
human, what happens to those human beings who don’t have any?
They’re in a better situation than if no one
did. In most cases, everyone has some private property. But, even so, the fact that someone has
private property benefits those who have none.
Just how does the private property of a few
benefit the whole?
The benefit isn’t a function of the paucity of property owners, but from the very existence of private
property. The market constrains producers to produce for the satisfaction of
society.
Do you believe that the right of property
ought to be limited for the common good?
It is important that the owner administer his
property in such a way that it benefits the commonweal. How is that brought
about? The problem is not whether or not controls exist, but rather whether
they are exercised by market forces or by state regulation and
intervention. I maintain that the market
solves this problem perfectly. Producers who do not adequately satisfy
society’s needs very soon find themselves without property.
Do you believe the laws of the market ought
always to function without intervention?
Yes, except when it results in harm to others,
like fraud, pollution, etc.
But during wartime, for example, we resort to
rationing and controls.
I agree with Henry Hazlitt, who held that precisely
in times of war it is imperative that the market works freely. The greater
the emergency, the greater the necessity not to intervene in the market’s
functioning. Rationing ought never be
permitted, because it results in shortages.
The Church seems to favor the laws of the
market, except when it comes to wages, and so she asserts that there ought to
be a “living wage,” a just wage that permits dignified living. What is your opinion?
There should be no intervention in the setting
of wages. It is good to create conditions that permit adequate compensation for
labor. But I don’t believe that that’s accomplished by intervening in
labor markets. That only creates benefits for some at the expense of others or in
the idleness of those “benefited.” If employers have the capacity
to pay an adequate salary, the market obliges
them to pay it.
To Be Continued
