Ownership rights

One thing that has been crossing my mind lately is something concerning individual liberty and the individuals conception of his/her right of ownership. No doubt about it, the right to your possessions is one of the most genuine foundations in a healthy modern society and the weaker this institutional natural law is, the less healthy is the economy we are depending on to subsist. Can this natural law actually have any borders? Does freedom know its own border?

Sometimes, one may retort, freedom isn’t always used in a desirable way. You can abuse your freedom if you hurt someone – physically or mentally. Almost all liberals agree on this stance, no matter if they call themselves social liberals or anarchic-libertarians. We all cheer the basic principle of that my freedom only has its borders when it is interfering with the freedom of my neighbor and we take it for granted. But when is this actually so? Well, I certainly do not have the right to kill anyone nor do I have the right to steal someone’s property or possession. But isn’t this just all physical violations? Haven’t we stated before that you can abuse your freedom if you hurt someone, not only physically but also mentally?

What does it mean to hurt someone mentally then? According to the Swedish National Encyclopedia there are many kinds of psychological abuses; humiliation, intimidation, mobbing, bullying, cyber-bullying, hate speech, manipulation, stalking, cyberstalking, relational aggression, parental aggression, psychological punishment, mind control, shunning, coercive persuasion and harassment. So to say, psychological abuse refers to the humiliation or intimidation of the individual and it can absolutely take the form of physical intimidation, controlling through scare tactics and oppression. Shouldn’t this then be a lucid example of violation of one’s freedom? Of course!

Evidently, the apparently divine natural right to your own property does not always take place in all cases or in all situations. Let me give you some good depicting examples. I should have the divine right to call myself whatever I find proper and suitable, King Calle, Uga bugga or Sven-Göran. But I ought to not have the right to call myself Nisse-Pärlemo-is-gay Teglund or The-Swedish-King-can-suck-my-balls Mohammed or All-Moslems-can-go-to-hell Leijonborg. Why not? Well the answer is as easy as pie. Simply because it insults the people I chose to offend with my name. I should of course have the right to call myself Calle-Teglund-is-gay Teglund because then I only offence myself and no one else. This is so, even though this interferes with the basic thought of the divine right to each individual’s freedom. Simply because it interferes with other individual’s freedom. Another evidence of this is the limitations you have of the right to your own property. You are not allowed to violate someone with your property. This is something that must be considered as a base of a healthy, modern and just society – the right of each individual not to be exposed to limitations of their freedom because of their color of their skin, cultural or religious belongings or whatsoever. I should not have the right, in my own forest/bar/school/amusement park, to put up big marks saying “Blacks not allowed” or “All Jews entering this area will get stomped and stabbed” for instance. This is so because it’s violating and hurting these people who belong to these groups whom I want to keep out of my property. Evidently, you may not violate any individual’s freedom of movement simply because your own preconceived notions about race, culture or religion. Your bouncers who work for you should be able to judge people by other criteria than those of gender and/or race. They have to face everyone equal and as they are – as individuals. It is therefore totally ok to deny people that are either too drunk or not following your own pre- decided dress code to enter your bar or restaurant or just put up signs at your home denying everyone access unto your estates.

But wait a minute. Doesn’t all this interfere with the right of ownership? Yes, in fact it does – but as we said before – the conception of your own liberty faces its borders when it interferes with others. I may do what the hell I want on my own estates, but I may not use my liberty to violate anyone else’s liberty. That is, and always will be until the last grain of sand hits the bottom in the hour glass of time, the natural order of the conception of our freedom.

//Carl-Mikael A. Teglund 2007-01-26