Enforcement of the duties of property ownership is the cornerstone of a good society

---

by Phil Hall

Rather than imagining they are powerful citizens, the ultra-rich prefer to believe that they are naturally unconstrained and owe little to individual states. They fantasise they roam the world like Captain Nemo, and assume they have far more rights than duties. But they are only allowed to own what they own by our collective grace.

Everyone lives in a society. It is not possible to become wealthy outside society. Society regulates what people can and cannot own, and what duties those who own property have to that society. If a person or corporation accumulates too much wealth, they have done so by skimming off other people’s labour, or their forebears have. Society shouldn’t tolerate the theft and accumulation of other people’s labour by the few.

If a French aristocrat or a great land baron killed peasants and stole their land, or colonialists conquered and stole the land of those they colonised—Israel, South Africa, the USA, and Australia come immediately to mind—or a big developer lobbies local and national government, pays bribes, and offers inducements to officials, they acquire land and wealth by force and subterfuge. The basis of ownership, hitherto, has been through the violent imposition of ownership by a minority. Therefore, legitimacy—and the legitimacy of all forms of ownership—can only be expressed and endorsed by a properly constituted democratic state, uncorrupted by the influence of powerful elites, where there is a representative economic, as well as political, democracy.

This need for control of property rights, conditioned by the need to ensure the public interest, is clearly acknowledged in the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

The problem lies in the very narrow definition of “public interest” that gives corporations a legalistic workaround and allows them to send their superprofits to hide in funk holes in the Caribbean to avoid paying fair taxation, or a definition riddled with loopholes that permit, for example, water companies to pour human waste in vast quantities into British rivers and the sea.

---

At the root of modern capitalist societies’ problems are the concepts governing property rights and duties. There should be severe limits set to what can and cannot be owned. Effectively, nothing is ever fully privately owned. All property is on loan from a legitimately formed, democratic state. You may buy your island from a country, but you are not buying a country.

Instead of simply re-nationalising (though a few re-nationalisations would be nice), we should reformulate property law. The problem with nationalisation is the Tragedy of the Commons: if no one owns something—fishing areas in international waters, for example—that resource is exploited and exhausted. On a collectivised farm, everything goes to pot, and no one takes responsibility for maintenance.

What is the value of property ownership itself? Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was wrong when he said, “Property is theft.” Property is not just theft. Clearly, there is value in property rights. Owners look after their property; ownership generates value—call it the value of good husbandry. When you complete a transaction, this husbandry has a price tag: goodwill. People pay well over the odds for it. Good ownership creates identity, cohesiveness, and permanence. It is worthwhile.

But ultimately, all property is merely on loan from a legitimate, national democratic state. At root, property is not an inalienable right. It depends on others’ agreement. Ownership is tolerated, and the only permanent ownership—in the people’s name—can be by a democratic state so long as that state lasts. Property changes hands when the state changes hands: from constitutional monarchy to republic, for example. After a revolution, aristocrats’ property returns to the people. In Cuba, casinos and brothels became hospitals and schools.

The public highway, coastline, beaches, and land held in trust are examples of what should be owned solely by the state, not individuals or corporations. Private or corporate ownership creates privileged access, bottlenecks, and deep unfairness.

Limit the right to own property.

---

Limit the right to property and expand the notion of the duties of property holders fully. There are effective ways to do this. Property ownership is a civil right, like others. Yet contrast how property holders’ rights and duties are handled with other civil rights and duties. The duties of property owners seem far too “negotiable” and flexible.

Parliament should have more say on ownership’s duties and limitations. Property ownership should be treated like other citizens’ rights and duties. The duties of those who own land, animals, machines, buildings, or resources should be based on principles of social good—not bargaining chips to attract capital or generate investment. The right to avoid taxes or pollute land, rivers, and seas should not be framed as “deregulation” or “incentivisation.” Enforcing property owners’ duties is a foundation of a good society, not merely an economic lever.

There must be severe limits on ownership. Ownership should operate like a renewable license. For example, owning a certain number of company shares should require a license, permitted only under defined circumstances. This would prevent anyone from becoming unfairly, stinking rich. Apply this licensing concept to limit speculative activity in financial and commodity markets. Curtail overextended property rights. Link ownership closely to civic responsibility and the public interest; rescind rights when civic irresponsibility is evident.

Property ownership is not inalienable—it is a civil right. Owning something carries civic duty. Your car must be licensed, in good working order, non-polluting. You need a license to drive it; you must follow the Highway Code. Property ownership raises moral questions. Certain ownership levels cannot be licensed—this has always been true, but it is a matter of degree. Democratically elected governments should adopt a far tougher approach to property rights and duties.

Treat ownership like other citizens’ rights: reformulate it as licenses and leases. If a company or individual pollutes, makes superprofits, bribes, lobbies, or corrupts politicians, their property should immediately return to public ownership—permanently.

.

• Article updated, amended and adapted from an original article published in 2008

.

---

Phil Hall was born in South Africa into an ANC family with British, French, Austrian, and German roots. After his parents were exiled, they lived in East Africa and India before returning overland to the UK. In the UK he studied Russian and Spanish literature, politics, and economics. After graduating he specialised in descriptive and applied linguistics. Phil has lived and worked in Spain, the USSR, Mexico and the Gulf. Returning to London during the pandemic, he co-founded the Humane Socialist magazine, Ars Notoria (the Art of the Noteworthy) and the micropublisher, AN Editions.