Property as the Foundation of Freedom: Richard Pipes’ Thesis
Richard Pipes puts forward a bold thesis: political freedom cannot exist without publicly guaranteed property rights. Although property is sometimes associated with greed, from a historical perspective, it serves as a crucial barrier against arbitrary power. This article analyzes how the transition from forceful possession to legal dominium enabled the transformation of violence into procedure. You will explore the evolution of this idea—from ancient disputes and the modern concept of self-ownership to the contemporary threats of "soft despotism."
From Ancient Dispute to Locke’s Self-Ownership
The foundation of this analysis is the distinction between possession (de facto control based on force) and property (a publicly recognized legal competence). As early as antiquity, Plato viewed property as a source of division, while Aristotle rightly argued that private ownership fosters responsibility and enables the virtue of generosity. It was the Roman concept of dominium that created the infrastructure in which disputes over things became a matter of legal title rather than physical dominance.
A key breakthrough came with John Locke, who introduced the concept of self-ownership. Since labor constitutes property, a person is, above all, the owner of their own body and time. James Madison expanded this thought, pointing out that our rights and beliefs are also property. Consequently, freedom of speech or conscience gained the status of an inviolable legal title, rather than just a political declaration.
Totalitarianism vs. the Constitutional Model
Pipes contrasts two models of the state: the constitutional (where property precedes and limits power) and the patrimonial (where the ruler owns the country). In totalitarian regimes, the monopolization of resources serves to turn citizens into dependent supplicants. Without a material basis for existence, the individual loses the capacity for resistance, as any dissent carries the risk of losing one's means of survival.
Therefore, the dispersion of property is an essential safeguard in the architecture of the state. Where property is widespread, the defense of private assets becomes the foundation for defending general liberty. Property disperses social energy, preventing its total centralization in the hands of the sovereign.
Modern Threats: Soft Despotism and Over-regulation
In modern democracies, property is rarely seized by force; more often, it is eroded by soft despotism. Excessive redistribution and a dense web of regulations cause property rights to degrade into mere administrative permits. To prevent this, a compensation test is necessary: any restriction on title must be accompanied by compensation, confirming that the state operates through normative dialogue rather than unilateral force.
Similarly, taxation should be evaluated in the register of form: it must be a predictable, general rule, not a tool for favoring clientelist groups. The lack of stable property also has anthropological consequences—it destroys responsibility, turning the citizen into an entitled being, deprived of the rigorous school of maturity that is the care for one's own welfare.
Summary: Property as the Body of Freedom
Property is the ontological embodiment of freedom in the material world. Without it, freedom remains merely a fleeting psychological projection. As Pipes noted, authority can grant political rights, but without property, people have nothing to allow them to sustain those rights permanently. Property, harnessed within the bounds of law, appears not only as a shield against tyranny but also as a mirror reflecting the condition of human freedom. In the labyrinth of regulations, will we manage to maintain the clarity of this reflection, or will we allow the promise of autonomy to dissolve in a sea of uncertainty?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF