Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I’d like to commend to Ricochet members George Gilder and Gale Pooley’s WSJ editorial We Should Measure Prices in Time. Their points are consistent with my more general view of Locke’s theory of property, but, whereas Locke wrote of property arising from “mixing labor,” I would say property is a consequence of “spending” time.
Each man’s life is his paramount property. The power to determine how to spend one’s life is the definition of liberty. If we spend our time creating something, material or intangible, trivial or magnificent, and someone takes it from us without our consent, they steal that part of our life. They deprive us to that extent of our liberty.
We may find it more productive or rewarding to allow someone else to direct how we spend our time (employment). We may also give the products of our occupation to another, either in exchange for something (commerce) or as a gift (charity). So long as these actions are freely chosen, they are an exercise of our liberty.
We are not free to spend our lives entirely as we please, of course. Our powers are limited, as are the resources available for our use. We have obligations to our children until they can care for themselves. We also must respect the liberty and property of others, as we would have them respect our own. We develop a variety of social institutions, rules of etiquette and ethics to help us navigate these natural limitations.
Government exists to preserve our liberty and protect our property. This naturally limits its legitimate authority; it should never prevent us from living in a manner consonant with the liberty and property of others.
Discussion (24)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Essays articulating the basic truths of praxeology (however it's named) with such clarity of thought and economy of words are rare and precious as gold. Thanks.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Good to see you back, SG!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I, too, well appreciate the conversation.
My observation, though, is that a parent may determine not to spend time on a child but to spend it frivolously on ones self. Depends upon whether or not we recognize (and accept) such obligations.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Outstanding post.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
In terms of “intangible” things, what does ‘take’ here mean? It could mean “you have it, too”; or it could mean “I no longer have it”. And thereby hangs a huge issue of the moment: what does it mean for intangibles to be ‘property’?
You're seeing five of 24 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.