Here are some thoughts and experiments on the notion of private property. These thoughts were inspired by conversations with Dil Green.
My aim here is pragmatic, that is to place philosophy and theory at the service of simple practicalities and realistic thought. Let's see what we can do first, then build structures on top of that constrictively with as much passion and intelligence as we can muster.
To start with let's assume the following: 1. Humans will fight to keep their private property rights 1. Institutions will fight to keep their private property rights 1. Private ownership of property feels good. It is emotional. We will miss it when it is gone. 1. Private property represents to many people their legacy, the ability to pass down meaningful value and memories to your children and grandchildren. 1. Business practices are moving away from property rights and towards subscription. Property rights are not foundational.
If this current landscape is roughly correct let's see what we can build on these foundations.
# Private property as legacy
Let's imagine a package of property rights that satisfy as many of the above conditions as possible. So we need to seek an easy path to move / redefine private property.
First let's forget commercial property for now, and let's not threaten commercial interests. Our aim is to create new forms of property with interesting social properties and to simply think through the consequences - as a thought experiment.
1. Let's not touch commercial property, nor try to change institutional structures too much. 1. Let's preserve the exclusive right to reside in property, and to pass this property on to your children, and grand children. 1. But let's create a new transfer the ownership of the property to the commons after that.
# Positive
Thinking of property as your legacy to your children, grandchildren and then to society is a natural and positive thought for many people. Giving people agency over this legacy could be an important motivator.
# Negative
They systemic consequences are that while transferring a significant amount of ownership to the commons, we also remove the right of future generations to pass down their "legacy". Your grand children won't be able to pass down the property to their children.
It is not clear (I have not thought through), what this means for inheritance in general. That is the sale of property. It would seem that the arguments here would need to apply to all forms of inheritance and not just property?
# The notion of legacy
This is not quite true, but it would feel this way. Rather we are moving the definition of legacy, from what I own, to what I have earned, and doing this over two generations.
Your grandchildren will be able to pass down the legacy of what yo have earned during your life to their children and children's children. In other words the idea of legacy as an immortally recursive chain is replaced by a meaningful personal exercise of influence.
# Commons Flow
Another aspect of this definition of property, is that it would enable us to look at a systemic flow of assets from private and into public (commons) hands and back again. That is we could regulate the balance between private and public property.
For this to work we would need public property to able to move into private hands. This of course is already happening with various forms of privatisation and right-to-buy. Currently this privatisation is only balanced by public bodies building new homes. This rarely happens unless it is after a major disaster, only applies when there is population growth, and is perceived as a "cost".
Building new homes is an expense to the public purse, it comes at the cost of putting the same money into education, or other public goods. Doing this on behalf of poorer people who cannot afford private property is consequently perceived as a handout to the underserving. Educating people to have stronger social ethos, can work, but is difficult, easily corrupted and well condescending.
When property is voluntary bequeathed to the commons, by our ancestors, according to their will and testimony - then this can hardly be looked down on, or ungratefully received.
Should too much property be bequeathed to the commons this way we can increase the rate of privatisation of public housing through right to buy schemes, if the supply to the commons decreases we can reverse this process.