

More From Forbes

Edit Story

There is Such a Thing as Redistribution

Adam Ozimek
This article is more than 9 years old.

Private property (you have been warned) (Photo credit: Adam Tinworth)

Somehow the presidential campaigns have bled into a debate about who favors redistribution and who doesn't. This has lead some to make the claim that "there is no such thing as redistribution". The basic argument is that laws must precede definitions of private property, and so any distributions of income, wealth, and property we have are fully government constructs. Here is Matt Bruenig making the argument:


I think Bruenig gets in the general vicinity of some true ideas here, but his central conclusion is way off the mark. First, it is true that no distributions is commanded by the fabric of the universe. But it also seems pretty obvious to me that the basic concept of private property is a social construct rather than a government one. Now private property in a modern society does require government in order to function well. After all, the social construct of private property is a basic one, and in the real world laws need to be precise and often complex. Furthermore it is in many instances beneficial for everyone to limit private property for the greater good. But private property is not a government created construct, it is a social construct. And this social construct often does provide us with a default form of economic institutions.

Imagine a plane crashes on an uninhabited island with many survivors. It is clear to all that they will be here for the rest of their lives, outside of the laws of their different homelands. Imagine one man walking up to another and casually taking the watch off his wrist. "Hey what are you doing?" the man losing his watch would say. "We haven't elected a government and defined private property yet, so you can't own this". Does this sound plausible? I don't think so. Sure, you could easily imagine one man taking the watch because he is stronger, and nobody can stop him. But both the taker or the takee would understand that the man's property is being taken. Both thief and owner recognize private property even in the absence of a government or legal system, and even if the thief chooses to ignore this.

Arguments like Bruenig's remind me of arguments about whether marriage a government construct or social construct.  Some might argue that marriage is a legal construct, since like private property, it is hard to imagine how it could function as an arrangement in a modern society without formalized legal rules. But in reality the institution of marriage exists outside any laws, and in fact our understanding of marriage as a social construct bounds what we consider to be acceptable or unacceptable laws about marriage.  This is true regardless of the actual history of how marriage evolved. It exists today as a social construct first, and a legal construct second.

You can see this in the fact that government could outlaw marriage or private property tomorrow, and we would find that they continue to exist, although not functioning nearly as well. The government could even scrub all definitions and laws relating to these arrangements from the books and refuse to take any position on them. This would probably result in a violent, ugly, and tumultuous society. But it would not result in a society where there was no concept of private property. The day after the government issued the decree, if someone were to walk into your house and started taking your stuff, much like the watch thief on the desert island, you would both know what they were doing: taking your private property.