On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Earlier this month, I attended a Chinese-American Conference in Beijing on property rights co-sponsored by the William and Mary Law School and the Tsinghua University Law School. One purpose of the conference was to award in absentia the Brigham-Kanner Prize to retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for her contributions to understanding the law of property. The intensive two-day discussions on property rights were open, animated, and cordial. They also revealed deep ironies in both the Chinese and American approaches to property rights.
On the Chinese side, much grand rhetoric spoke of the power and wisdom of the socialist state, which until 1988 had doggedly held that private property was illegal. Even today, Chinese property law does not grant outright ownerships to any of its citizens. Instead, it draws a basic distinction between urban and rural lands. The former are owned by the state on behalf of the people. The latter are owned by collectives that parcel out use rights to its various members. In both of these situations, the individual person in possession of a particular parcel of land has a set of precarious use rights that are respected in any dispute between private individuals, but can be overridden by the action of the state or the collectives (which are themselves under government control).
The same political intrigue that undermines the operation of market institutions on Chinese land now does so here--with policies like eminent domain and rent controls--but with far less justification. After all, we are not in the position of having to play catch-up for the misdeeds of a cultural revolution. This country has prospered by a strong respect for the rule of law, which is undermined for no good reason by local governments that trample on the property rights of their own citizens.
It is therefore deeply disturbing that Justice O’Connor, along with her colleagues, both liberal and conservative on the bench, validated a destructive system of rent control. When it comes to identifying the many sources of American decline, one item that deserves a high place on that list is the gratuitous destruction of private property rights, a process that has been aided and abetted by the Supreme Court for too long. It is indeed ironic that as China tries to codify a system of private property rights, the United States seems all too willing to move in the wrong direction.
You can read my full column at Defining Ideas.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Amen. Rent control is a species of theft.
May '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Yes they are. And since my time spent to make money is gone once it is spent, any theft against me is taking part of my life.
Don't we say something about the right to life along with liberty?
Edited on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:36amMar '11
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Property, let alone private property, is such a bourgeois notion. What you call property naturally belongs to the state because the state is everything, you included. Now where is the drum circle?
May '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Of course, it's not as though I had allodial title to my house and lot either, since the fee simple I hold is still at the mercy of the government.
In England and Canada, somewhat less so de facto in the US (a lot less after Kelo....) all title is at the sufferance of the crown, something I never knew before Property class.
It seems to me that the unfortunate Chinese system differs from ours by degree, rather than absolutely.
Dec '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
As long as we have property taxes, our system is ultimately identical to that of the Chinese-- or that of an ancient European Feudal system-- from a first principles perspective.
Dec '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
I agree completely with KarlUB. All one has to do to discover he only leases his property from the state is to not pay the lease (property taxes).
Nov '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
I'm interested in learning more about how property rights could be used to slow down the regulatory behemoth that the US in particular seems to be experiencing. The EPA shouldn't have the power to fine you if you have an endangered species on your property, nor should a health official be able to fine you for giving doughnuts to your customers. Re-asserting real property rights to me is the only way to slay this hydra.
Dec '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Nothing was more absurd. Between 2005 and 2007 when the market was (for anyone with a brain) topped out completely, idiot developers and local gov. planners were running around undermining property rights. This is a prime example of what I call 'left wing greed'. As real estate prices continued to be inflated, more development ment more tax revenue for local gov. dependent on property tax. In the ultimate grasping greedy stupidity they compounded the housing bubble. People who would normally be playing the traditional bear role and warning of prices running wildly high, were busy calculating how much new tax revenue would allow them to overhire and extend an already fat benefits/pay package for gov workers. Obama is the embodiment of their phenomenally irresponsible mentality. After 2008-2009 when the extent of the damage was evident people started to slowly realize what evil had been done. Still Obama and friends continued the left wing fantasy economy with ever more absurd claims and schemes. I made the joke that Obama had the physicists working on finding 'the worm hole'. He'd send his emissaries through to the next universe. Maybe they'd find more money to borrow there!!!!
Dec '10
Re: On Property Rights, U.S. Resembles Statist China
Hey Prawn: That's a nice bent billiard on your profile pic. Who made it?