Date Written: 2/13/2023
Question: Is there a “right of free speech” in the abstract, or is the question of free speech at root a matter of property rights?
In modern times people are always saying that human rights are more important than property rights. However it is often hard to define what these human rights really are and why they are different from property rights.
Let’s consider the human right of free speech. Imagine someone walked into your house and started yelling at you saying how much of a lazy deadbeat you are. That person justifies their actions because they have the right of free speech. According to the human right of free speech that person has the right to be there speaking their mind. Obviously this is absurd; nobody would accept a person yelling at them in their own home. So most people conclude that we must make an exception to the right of free speech.
Now let’s consider another example. Imagine that you are watching a performance in a theater. Then, all of the sudden, someone in the audience stands up and starts shouting about something. According to the right of free speech they have they right to do this. However it would be disrupting the performance and ruining everyone’s experience at the theater. So once again most people conclude that an exception to the right of free speech is necessary, so that this doesn’t happen. If you think about it, there are also many other scenarios like this one where an exception to the right of free speech would be necessary. Then with all the exceptions to the right of free speech its definition starts to get very fuzzy.
Property Rights Role
If we think of these scenarios in the terms of property rights, then all of the exceptions and confusion go away. There is one thing that must be understood before we can explore this issue further. It is that the owner of property has the right to set the rules on/for that property because they own that property. If you are questioning this statement’s validity then click here to learn more about property rights.
With that out of the way let’s begin. In the first example we concluded that there must be an exception to the right of free speech, so that situations where people are getting yelled at in their own home can be avoided. However when we consider the fact that the owner of that house sets the rules for that house this situation can be avoided. Most likely, if the owner of that house is a rational person, then he will have set a rule that strangers can’t walk in and yell at him. Because he owns the house he has the right to do this. Since we have considered property rights this problem has been resolved.
The same thing goes for the second example. Obviously the owner of the theater will have set a rule against shouting in the theater. He wants his customers to have an enjoyable experience, so they will return to his business someday. If someone is shouting and ruining the performance, then customers most likely will not return. So the theater owner will have set a rule against shouting, so this doesn’t happen. He has the right to do this because he owns the theater. If you think of these scenarios in terms of property rights, then all of these exceptions will not exist.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that we shouldn’t be able to speak our minds. We have the right to say whatever we wish when we are on our own property because we make the rules on our property. But when we are someone else’s property we must abide by their rules. If one of those rules is not shouting profane things at them then we must follow that rule.
Instead of thinking in terms of the right of free speech, with all of its confusing exceptions and misleading definitions, we must think in terms of property rights. Property rights can be clearly defined as the owner of the property has the right to set the rules on that property. This solves all of the problems that arise with the right of free speech. So in reality the right of free speech doesn’t exist. It is at it’s root simply a matter of property rights.
Government-Owned/Public Property
There is one issue with the system of property rights explained above. It occurs when government-owned/public property is considered. It is nearly impossible to determine who owns that property, so the rules for that property can not be determined. When considering the matter of free speech, if the rules can not be determined, no one will know what can be said on that property.
Try to determine who owns public property? If it’s the government, then exactly what person or group of people owns the property? Does this person or group of people legitimately own this property? Any property the government “owns” has either been taken from people by force or bought with money that was taken from people via taxes. Is this a legitimate way to acquire property? All public property is acquired with one of these coercive methods. So shouldn’t the original owners of the property or the taxpayers be the owners of public property? If the taxpayers own it, then how would the rules be made? Since the agreement of millions of taxpayers would be necessary to make any decisions for the property.
The best way to solve this mess of problems is to get rid of public property and make it all private. For the matter of free speech, this will solve any problems identifying who owns the property and thus makes the rules for that property.
In conclusion, the human right of free speech is in reality just property rights with a different name. And as long as the owner of the property can be identified the system of property right will always work. When we look closer at many “human rights” we will realize that they are really just extensions of property rights.
Leave a Reply