The subprime loans crisis has seen a record number of foreclosures on American homes. The event has rocked the U.S. housing industry and generated investigations into the practices of the mortgage industry. The crisis calls into question the nature of ownership in this country.
The prevailing opinion concerning property is that it is what someone possesses or has a lawful claim to. In the United States, ownership is the ideal. The spirit of ownership comes from our belief (taken from John Locke) in the basic right of individuals to have property. It is euphemized in the Declaration of Independence as "the pursuit of happiness." But that view is erroneous. The truth is that property, as currently defined, is not a right but a condition dependent on defensibility.
Property falls into two categories, with one of them being arbitrary. The first is actual property, which is what one possesses or has a defensible claim to. This type of property is the most common. It is the property that one has at the present time. Actual property is a temporary condition of proprietorship.
An example of this is the Philippines. The republic of the Philippines was, at one time or another, the ward of Spain, Mexico, Great Britain, the United States and Japan. All of these nations claimed the Philippines as their own. They had charters and treaties affirming their ownership, but those documents were only valid as long as no other country was able to conquer the islands for themselves. Therefore, ownership of anything is a tentative condition.
Another example is the United States government's mission to acquire land. The current U.S. once belonged to Great Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, the Hawaiian Empire and the thousands of sovereign Native American nations. But the land area of the U.S. is currently the property of its government. One may argue, and could do so very successfully, that the land was obtained through nefarious means, but in terms of actual property, it matters little how one obtained their possession; it only matters that they possess it. In the case of eminent domain, a person's house or land may be taken in exchange for "just" compensation in the interest of the "general good." Both of the terms in quotations are up for contention, but one thing is sure: the person's "property" would be taken away because the insurer of their property invalidated their lawful claim to it. In the context of the subprime loan crisis, the insurers are the lenders. Then, we see that property is not theft. As the philosopher J.P. Proudhon once said: it is temporary hoarding.
The other form of property is just property - what one rightfully owns, regardless of the current proprietor. The Native American nations may justly claim North America as their land, as they were the first to occupy it. But the land belongs to the government of the United States because the U.S. is its current possessor. But this form of property is less concrete because, for just property to be allocated fairly, one needs to accept the concepts of justice and fairness in order to judge these matters. Both concepts are conventions of the society in which one lives. They may be universal concepts, but their meanings change greatly depending on the time and place. Property is recognizable through the conventional lens but quite effaceable when confronted by the hard reality of actual property. Property is only valid if defensible under attack.
Therefore, property of our world is a fleeting condition, not a human right such as life or liberty. To own simply means to own now. Just as toddlers in a playpen angle for the most toys, individuals and groups act in their own interests. Does that make the property which they acquire legitimate? No, there is only defensibility. Alas, the people who lost their homes as a result of the loan crisis could not defend these individuals. But then, did they ever really own their houses in the first place? It does not seem so.
N'Diaye is a government and English junior.
Be the first to comment on this article!