Carli Jones
Philosophy 1120-11
Dr. Izrailefsky
November 15, 2012

“Copyright and intellectual property are the real estate of the future,” (Schur). This debatable quote makes me wonder about private property and the rights that are associated with it. Where are the lines drawn on what you can and cannot own? Truly it’s not just our homes or physical belongings, it has to be more than that. What about our private thoughts, ideas and rationales? Who is able to claim ownership on those personal matters? In this paper I am going to explore the aspects of freedom to own private property in the United States, and also compare
Karl Marx and Ayn Rand’s philosophy on the topic.
When I think of private property I think of all the belongings I possess, the items I have available to me in my home, and my individual thoughts.
Private property is one of the most valued freedoms in the United States. Besides the liberty to practice religion, and speech, we place a great deal of importance on our right to ownership. Whether it is the right to own a home, land, a business, or even the most liberal literature it is something that we can call our own. The sense of ownership of land and liberty can be traced back to the earliest settlers in the
United States. Many colonists set out in desperate search for freedom to own property and in a sense hunting for a religious refugee.
“
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
Pros & Cons of Private Property 1

compensation,” (Cornell University Law School). Although most of the Fifth Amendment has to do with committed crime and the right to a jury trial, the last portion rings loud and clear.
Private property in the United States is just that, private. What is mine is mine, and the same to everyone else. Our belongings may not be taken for public use without consent and approval of the owner or fair payment. Such property belongs undeniably to an individual. That same individual always has the right to do with it as he/she so chooses. This right to own property, and the right to keep the rewards of individual labor is truly the basis of the constitution. Consequently, the freedom to own private property is judged differently by all philosophers. From radical possession to the obliteration, there are endless ways to view this freedom we claim daily.
“Compromising this freedom is strictly unconstitutional. It is a social-political principle that adult human beings may NOT be prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding, or trading with willing parties valued items not already owned by others. This concept is a right that should, be protected by the legal system,” (Machan). This definition brings out different tones in a philosophical application when looking at both views of Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. One opinion repels this philosophical definition, while the other drives it.
Karl Marx had a very defined opinion on private property. He associated private property as a powerful means in building class systems, which in his opinion was the downfall of societies. The essence of society, as well as the overall essence of the human person, is the system of constant economic relationships. Such relationships to property, money and the power gained from the stated items make up capitalism and class systems putting one genre of
Pros & Cons of Private Property 2

individuals over another. Once private property begins, discrimination and an unequal political system take over. This aspect, to Marx, began the downfall of civilizations.
“A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirements for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls,” (Marx).
Interestingly enough, this quote from Marx sums up the majority of his communist thoughts and ideals. The constant competition for more money, more power, more political pull is precisely what Marx feared. He had a vision of a perfect society, one where everyone was equal in all aspects of life. Communism, as he proposed, would be the ultimate self-governing society that would put an abrupt end to private property, government, army, and even police. If communism were to be perfected, there would be absolutely no need for any private property.
The crime rate would be non-existent because each individual would be collectively working together to better the community. The collective attitude turns what is “mine” into “ours”. Each individual deserves equality, to each individual the same treatment because of the collective attitude.
“From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e.
, from the moment when individual
Pros & Cons of Private Property 3

property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible,” (Marx and Engels, The Communist
Manifesto). The Communist Manifesto brings up some interesting standards for private property.
Private property is all based off of the capitol of an individual. What would happen if everyone worked together to survive and did away with individual capitol? A communist utopia, a society where all people worked together to obtain the same, stable standard of living. This concept isn’t even imagined here in the United States, or by the contrasting view of Ayn Rand.
“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave. Bare in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object , but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.
It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values,” (Rand).
Ayn Rand describes pure capitalism. The right to ownership of property, whether it is tangible or intellectual, is based on one’s ability to drive their motivation and obtain it through hard work. With capitalism, one is able to reach their full potential. Although it can seem harsh at times, she states that each person is accountable for themselves and only themselves. You
Pros & Cons of Private Property 4

cannot rely on others to take care of you, fund your lifestyle, or be generous enough to contribute to your wellbeing. It is solely up you to earnestly provide and sustain your own health, happiness, education, and intellect. This varies greatly from Karl Marx’s view of communism.
Rand makes it blatantly clear that all forms of collectivism are wrong, and utterly worthless whereas Marx’s philosophy is the complete opposite of this. Rand stands for radical individualism with the type of attitude that has independence at its core. The sense of community does not seem realistic, or dependable to her. Rights are not just handed to each person; you must
EARN the right to own a home, or any other property you desire.
Consequently, Rand disagreed with charities and welfare programs. Why would one have to give their hard earned profits to another who does not have the determination to earn their own way? This is the viewpoint she had. Welfare and charities are an easy way for the lazy to make a living. With her strict view of capitalism, and radical individualism Rand argued that these programs were a waste of money. Without funding provided to such programs, those who benefit from them would have to join the workforce to earn their own way in society. By doing so, they may be able to purchase land and property of their own. Then, and only then, they are entitled to the same material values as others.
“Wealth is the capacity of man’s ability to think,” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged). This quote directly relates to her philosophy of gaining intellectual knowledge and applying it for furthering career goals to make a profit. She truly believed that the right for owning property was the outcome of working to achieve ownership. Marx and Rand have drastically different views when it comes to private property, as well as many other issues such as charities, social economical
Pros & Cons of Private Property 5

systems and even liberal rights. Comparing the two contrasting philosophies makes it interesting to see how differently both of them think of how the “perfect” society should be.
Noticing the distinct differences in each philosophical viewpoint of both Marx and Rand,
I can easily see that there is middle, commonly called, gray area between the two. One radical extreme to the other, they both have interesting and dramatized opinions on how they think society should function together, or in Rand’s eyes how everyone should function separately. I personally have my own opinion concerning both of their attitudes.
While Marx’s vision of the Communistic utopia sounds fantastic, it is not human nature for everyone to want to share all of his or her earnings. I know that when I receive my paycheck,
I don’t automatically deduct a portion of it to help those without the same commodities, as I am lucky enough to have. It is human nature to be competitive, to push yourself to achieve a level of excellence that you envision. A nation based on communism, in my opinion, would never be as safe or simplistic as Marx makes it out to be. It would be difficult because it is in our genetic make up to respond when someone tells us what to do, or that an entire society should communicate together to reach a common goal of collectivism. Naturally, each person is an individual, with individual, private thoughts. These thoughts and opinions will always prevent us from reaching that goal of equality throughout our nation.
One of the greatest pros of living in the United States is that we have the RIGHT to own property, whether it is a home, opinion, or even literature, many countries are limited much more in their right to freedom than we are. The founding fathers of our nation made a point to listen to the people and outline, support and publish our individual rights. That is something many forget
Pros & Cons of Private Property 6

and look over in their day-to-day routine. Take North Korea for example. There are now more than 1 million cell phone subscribers, however all phones are monitored. If the government detects any information about capitalism, or connection with the outside countries, there are severe punishments.
"The risk remains of being caught in the random regional surveillance sweeps authorities conduct—which, in the worst case, could lead to imprisonment as a political criminal," reported a North Korean defector (Martin). Sadly, other countries are still under strict limitations of freedom. This kind of monitoring is a violation of private property and would be unheard of here in the United States.
I can only hope that the nations like North Korea, or other communist countries with limited freedoms, are able to turn things around eventually. The right to private property really coincides with every other personal freedom we love and take advantage of on a daily basis. As wonderful and simplistic of a picture that Karl Marx paints concerning communism, human beings are meant to think individually. Collectivism within a community is beneficial for larger issues concerning schools, public safety, and respect. Conclusively, I think there needs to be a balance between the two, enabling respect for private property while still warranting a stable community for a society to work together in regards to larger issues that effect all.
Pros & Cons of Private Property 7

Cornell University Law School. Fifth Amendment. Ithaca, 16 12 2007.
Machan, Tibor. The Right to Private Property. Orange, 27 04 2005.
Marx, Karl. "Wage Labour and Capital." 12 1847. Marxists.org. 14 11 2012
<http://www.marxist.org/archive/arx/1847/wage-labour/index.html>.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Signet
Classic, 1998.
Martin, Alexander. The Wall Street Journal. 27 07 2012. 17 11 2012
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577487572176127932
.html>.
Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York : Signet, 1957.
The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet, 1964.
Schur, Richard L. Parodies of Ownership. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
2011.
Pros & Cons of Private Property 8