“If historical experience could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.” — Ludwig von Mises in "Human Action"

Private property is fundamental to the happiness of every individual. Whether it’s necessities like food, water and shelter, or luxuries, such as a television or a car, the importance of private property cannot be overstated. Without it, everyone would be living in government housing, using commonly owned property, all of which could be revoked for whatever reason the ruling class deemed necessary; it’s safe to say that free speech would be history and compliance to every arbitrary dictate by the State would be crucial for even basic survival. And, as history has demonstrated, democide (that is, murder by government) would be on the table.

John Locke, the father of classical liberalism, was a major influence upon Thomas Jefferson when the latter was drafting the Declaration of Independence; specifically, his trinity “life, liberty and property.” The final word in the trinity was later changed by Jefferson in his Declaration to the flamboyant “pursuit of happiness” for poetic purposes, but the importance of private property was even acknowledged by the Founders themselves.

Unfortunately, it appears the Founders didn’t take the application of private property to its logical conclusion. This is evident when you consider the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1):

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

But wait, isn’t taxation legalized theft?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution also exudes violations of property rights:

“...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

This is more commonly known as eminent domain; either you give the government your property for the price they will pay, or they will outright steal it, and maybe they’ll give you lower than fair market value for your property; all coercively done, of course. But, as history has shown, governments always abuse their power, which was evident when Jim and Joanne Saleet’s home was bulldozed to build a shopping mall and condominiums in 2003.

Those are just a couple of the more atrocious examples, but the 1787 federal Constitution is fraught with violations of property rights and contradictions.

This problem is further exacerbated when examining the anti-republican Republicans and anti-democratic Democrats.

Progressives (or, shall I say “regressives”) adamantly campaign for abortion, which is due to their belief that woman own their bodies, and should be able to do with them as they wish. Most of them also advocate for the end of the drug war for the very same reason, only they extrapolate what seems to be their advocacy of self-ownership out to everybody individually.

Hypocritically, their belief in self-ownership ends where your gun rights begin. After all, firearms are private property and are no different than the laptop I am using to write this essay. Begging for gun control is not only analogous to advocating for the mass murder of innocent people, but it also points out a contradiction in the line of thinking. Just as there is no such thing as a “mixed economy,” there is no such thing as a “mixed belief” in property rights — you either own yourself and the fruits of your labor, or you are enslaved in some manner.

The fascists (so-called “right-wing”) are not without fault either. They campaign endlessly for private gun ownership, but when it comes to any individual desecrating the American flag, pleas for prosecution and initiated violence are far too common, such as what happened recently in Portland at Waterfront Park. Just as firearms are private property, flags are too; how is it any different than if I decided to burn another piece of fabric that I owned? Summarily, both major political ideologies contain numerous contradictions, and especially so when it comes to private property (it’s also worth noting that the backlash against flag desecration is not mutually exclusive to the right wing, but it seems to be more prominent with the hyper-nationalistic fascists).

Conclusion

Back in 1998, philosopher Hans-Herman Hoppe delivered a revolutionary defense of private property, known as argumentation ethics. In short, anyone who argues has already foresworn the use of force, and more importantly, is demonstrating property rights during the very moment of arguing itself. Subsequently, anyone who argues against private property (whether it be against firearms, abortion, etc.), must first exercise the implicit ownership of their own bodies (i.e. the use of their mouth, brain, vocal cords, etc.), which, if done, would result in a performative contradiction.

Some other examples of this would be phrases like, “Language is meaningless,” and “I am dead.” Language inherently carries meaning, and dead men can’t speak; therefore, these performative contradictions can be summarily dismissed, as can also be the socialist hatred of private property, because socialists must exercise property rights in the very moment they spew their vile against private property ownership.

To tie this back into the fascists and “regressives,” anyone who argues for taxation, gun control or the right to dictate what people do with their own American flags, have now engaged in a performative contradiction. Because they have so clearly demonstrated their intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, their advocated claims are exposed as blatantly illogical due primarily to the fact that their disregard for the property rights of others contracts the exercise of their own property rights in the very moment of said advocacy.

So, what is the significance of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics? Well, if it is correct (and I believe it is), it invalidates all political ideologies, except for free-market anarchism.

Voluntary interaction, which is essentially the exchange of private property, is antithetical to the coercive State institution, namely, government. It is where all innovation, all creativity and all prosperity originate from. I think Frederic Bastiat puts it best:

“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”