Private Property, “TINA” and “You didn’t build that”

Last updated on: January 26, 2014 at 9:47 pm by Jane the Actuary

Private Property, “TINA” and “You didn’t build that” 2014-01-26T21:47:00-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Yet another classic* Jane the Actuary rambling “thinking through an idea” type of post.

(* If a 6 month old blog could be said to have any “classic” kind of post.)

This is something I was thinking through a while back, and wanted to try to set out in a provisional form.

Fundamentally, there are basic human rights that are considered to be a part of “natural law” (to use the philosophical/theological term), such as free speech, freedom of religion, and so forth. But is the right to own private property among them? Consider the eastern Nebraska farm my father owns. He inherited it from his mother, who inherited it from her father, and his father before that was a homesteader. Reportedly remnants of the old sod house were still visible the last time dad was there. And where did he get it from? The U.S. government, who stole/purchased/won it from the Indians/Native Americans fair-and-square, depending on your point of view. And of course, the Indians were not just some monolithic group; various Indian groups lived there at different times, either migrating away or pushing others out.

Is property ownership a matter of first-come first-served? That doesn’t seem fair for the generations which follow. Or is it a matter of the strongest winning out? Not much better.

There is no intrinsic reason why any one individual has a right to own a piece of farmland, or a city lot. And at different times and places that’s been reflected in different attitudes toward property ownership: yes, the bit that Indians didn’t make a fuss over white settlers because, after all, no one “owned” the land, in their view. (Though I’d read recently that a bigger element was that the East coast Indian settlements had been devastated by disease in the time period immediately prior to the arrival of the English, so there weren’t reasons for land disputes.) But also the fact that one impediment to development in Africa has been that property-owning laws don’t really point the way towards particular individuals holding clear title over plots of land.

And this brings me to Margaret Thatcher’s “there is no alternative” — the classic phrase she used frequently to persuade her opponents that, for all its flaws, a market economy and economic liberalism is the only economic system that will, in the end, provide growth and development and meet its citizens’ needs, a phrase ultimately abbreviated to “TINA.” See the Wikipedia article and a more recent article that David Cameron is reviving this phrase in the U.K. for more context.

Bottom line: TINA means supporting free enterprise, and everything that goes along with it, not because it’s “fair” but because it works, when alternative economic systems don’t, but also requires an acknowledgement that the system is a construct, a way of organizing society and the economy, not a “natural” and immutable one.

So where does that get us?

Not to Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama’s “You didn’t build that” formulation.

You remember that one, right? Wikipedia helpfully gives the full quotes:

First, Warren, in August 2011:

I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Then, Obama, on July 13, 2012, clearly taking Warren’s notion and putting his own spin on it:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t – look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Warren’s formulation is one of a “social contract” — but she creates a straw man, an opponent who disagrees with basic obligation to support core government services, when her opponents legitimately disagree with her on the subject of the size of that obligation and the consequent taxes.

And Obama goes further: “Someone else made that happen” vs. “you didn’t do this entirely on your own.” Obama is far more collectivist; in his version, it’s not intelligence or hard work that enables some to get ahead, it’s luck. (Maybe the fact that he got ahead through, indeed, luck and the good fortune of others latching onto him, colors his perception.) He really removes individual achievement entirely — and I don’t think it’s as simple as misspeaking, though the entire statement feels as clouded as if he’s trying to recall Warren’s lines, and stumbling through them.

(Incidentally, his line that “government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet” is a bit flaky as well: government research created the Internet as a part of building up national defense capabilities, without any inkling that it would be so transformative for commerce.)

In practice, the lines of disagreement generally are as much about what functions best as what’s “fairest” — is it fair to tax the wealthy disproportionately more, because they can afford it? Yes. Is it unfair to tax the wealthy excessively, to the point where half or more of their marginal earnings are paid to the State? Yes. Does it feel particularly egregious when it’s an individual who has invented, created, started a business, worked long hours, etc., rather than hitting the CEO lottery or the hefty paychecks of pro athletes? Yes. But more importantly — what’s best for the long-term health of the economy?

Anyway, the reason why I’m writing this is as a sort of preface to something I want to work out over the next couple days, a sort of “Jane the Actuary plays Jane the Futurist.” What happens to our society if current trends intensify and our economy moves into a world we don’t recognize now?

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 25, 2014

"Do what you love" (continued)

Next Post

January 27, 2014 Parking a link: Whither meritocracy?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the ____ and the End,” says the Lord God.

Select your answer to see how you score.

Truth Light Beginning Eternal