MOTION 4: THP a world without the concept of private property
Key Clashes:
1. How does this concept affect societal functionality?
2. In which world is society better off long term?
Clash 1 Gov:
Context: in such a world, society would not have an information on or opt-in capacity into private property (e.g. how one needs a title deed to verify land ownership, etc.) – why? - the absence of a concept means the absence of its interpretation and materialization, thus society in this world looks like: 1. One who meaningfully consents to all property being owned and distributed by state (e.g. agricultural land, housing areas, etc.) and the limitations on access to certain property is dictated by state instead of individuals or groups, 2. One that finds value in contributing to the whole, and where individuals can still get good reputation and esteem in how they contribute (e.g. value in job skills, educational background, etc. will still be indicators of job positions and payment as in status quo) thus development is still sustained
1. Why is the concept of private property harmful?
● Exclusion:
? Resources are localized to the few elite at the expense of the less fortunate: gentrification happens when elites take over certain areas and seek to raise the quality/living standards in that area (e.g. constructing malls), causing those who can no longer afford it to be pushed into lower cost places, slums or ghettos
? Locked up resources: family assets, inheritance, and long-term investment in assets through wealth accumulation mean that certain assets keep money in the economy locked up and it cannot circulate since assets such as inheritance are rarely ever sold off
COMPARATIVE:
? All assets are property of state, and are utilized to increase productivity and revenue from them, thus individuals or groups cannot choose to lock up assets that could benefit the rest of society if they are put to use (e.g. Using land for social housing programs for those with lower paying jobs to have affordable housing and pay rent to state, etc.) - meaning we also mitigate gentrification that is exacerbated through land ownership as state controls how that land is being used and distributed for maximum benefit to society
● We attach value/worth to ownership:
? Individuals in society exclude others from access to certain opportunities or resources based on their value assessment of that individual - e.g. we are more inclined to want to work with someone who has a higher net worth than someone who doesn’t - the status we attach to ownership contributes to discrimination and economic castes
? People become productivity machines and seek to invest all they have into elevating themselves in the working world and accumulating wealth since it is their gateway to property ownership and status - we do this at the cost of our social relationships, mental health, and physical health
COMPARATIVE:
? People have one less avenue to use to exclude others and form societal castes
? People would be value other aspects of life better such as leisure, since there is no pressure tied to the ownership of private property
Clash 1 Opp:
1. What is the value of the concept of private property?
● Security:
? Being able to conceptualize private property means being able to interrogate the ways in which it can being benefit: it provides businesses, individuals and banks with a secure means of loan access through ensuring collateral by privately owned assets, thus this security promotes functionality of the economy (e.g. financing business start-ups, etc.) and increases avenues of access to those who need loans
? If all other revenue streams fail, private property can be a back-up to either sell or employ (e.g. Guaranteed of shelter if you own a house but don’t have a job) - importance: reduces dependence on constant paychecks to make a living, especially in times of crisis such as COVID where layoffs are common
? Protection from state – state is governed by law and policy, and influenced by its relations with other states, which translates to societal impact: if everything belongs to state, when a leader wants to implement a new policy that involves property redistribution or shifting (e.g. new infrastructure, etc.) to accommodate a new deal with another nation or new internal policy, society has no say in the land they would be living/working/depending on -> this is worsened by democratic states who have changing leaders with changing policies or new deals
● Optionality in rewards:
? Human beings want to see a materialization of their hard work through different avenues, e.g. increased purchasing power, recognition/awards, fringe benefits, investment – private property is the most important addition to reward optionality – why? - citizens are able to access soft power outside of their jobs or positions within society, thus are able to control a piece of that society that is theirs by law – this is an important motivational factor to work harder in their jobs, and to value the relationship they have with state for allowing them access to that level of power
Clash 2 Gov:
1. We will always continue to place the value of property over the value of human necessities at the point where we attach private property ownership to things like security and protection – this trade off does not exist on gov side because security and protection is provided by state through things like pension plans, insurance, welfare programs etc. meaning the burden of securing ourselves is now on state
2. Perpetuation of the Pareto Efficiency: due to a finite amount of resources, if someone accesses something, another person is always going to be worse off from lack of access – we worsen the class divide in opp world, lock up resources and have an overall warped view of regarding property over life
Clash 2 Opp:
1. Putting our lives and security solely in the hands of state is never sustainable – crisis, political changes, state relations, etc. - with all the uncertainties of state, access to private property is always justified
2. State can be a bridging mechanism for those who lack the opportunity to own – grants to those who cannot afford to secure a loan with collateral, alternative means of long-term payment to secure property (e.g. payment via deducting a percentage of one’s salary/wage until the asset is bought, etc.)
