Private Property

The term ‘Property’ in its modern use only begins to appear in the 17th century in the context of considering the relative powers and privileges of individuals, groups and the state. Property is a usable commodity: something material, like land, or a natural resource or what may be made out of these, or something abstract like an idea or a plan, or a name or title. Whoever owns this commodity has exclusive rights to the use of it, though it is generally acknowledged that this right is not absolute but may be suspended or overridden where there is special need, though its loss should then be compensated. This is what in the US is referred to as government’s ‘eminent domain’ and in other places as ‘compulsory acquisition’. There are three kinds of property: common, collective and private. Common property belongs to everyone and may be used without permission. Collective property is controlled and managed by some group for the benefit of all concerned. Private property is that belonging to individuals, either single individuals, or families, or legal corporations such as companies. Historically the development is in that order, i.e. in the distant past resources were common, then some were held and managed collectively, then later the idea of exclusive individual ownership emerged. Ethically the question is what justifies ownership and in particular what justifies private property? The broad answer is that the use and control of commodities is necessary for the satisfaction of human needs, and thereby for the protection and promotion of human wellbeing. Critics of private property argue that all commodities should be held and managed collectively, while its defenders argue that only where individuals are directly invested in the use of commodities will they use them responsibly for their own good and that of others. In this view private ownership leads to the development of various virtues mainly prudence, responsibility, liberty and generosity. In the Catholic tradition major figures such as Aquinas have defended private property on this basis but also rejected the idea that it is absolute and held that in circumstances of severe need it is permissible for the poor and destitute to take the surplus of the rich.