Essay:Property rights and human rights

From Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Jump to: navigation, search

Property rights and human rights are closely connected. Paul L. Poirot argues that property rights are even more important than human rights.[1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights advocates a number of restrictions on economic freedom that interfere with property rights. For example, a requirement to give employees paid vacations diminishes the ability of the owner to money or a business to do with his property as he wishes. Libertarians have pointed out that free speech can only exist when property rights are protected.[2][3][4]


  1. Poirot, Paul L.. "Human Rights Are More Important than Property Rights". 
  2. Rothbard, Murray. "Property Rights and "Human Rights"". For a New Liberty. "The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy." 
  3. von Mises, Ludwig. "Freedom". Human Action. "As soon as the economic freedom which the market economy grants to its members is removed, all political liberties and bills of rights become humbug. Habeas corpus and trial by jury are a sham if, under the pretext of economic expediency, the authority has full power to relegate every citizen it dislikes to the arctic or to a desert and to assign him "hard labor" for life. Freedom of the press is a mere blind if the authority controls all printing offices and paper plants." 
  4. Rothbard, Murray. "Democracy". Power and Market. "Neither is democracy conceivably workable under socialism. The ruling party, owning all means of production, will have the complete decision, for example, on how much funds to allocate to the opposition parties for propaganda, not to speak of its economic power over all the individual leaders and members of the opposition. With the ruling party deciding the income of every man and the allocation of all resources, it is inconceivable that any functioning political opposition could long persist under socialism. The only opposition that could emerge would be not opposing parties in an election, but different administrative cliques within the ruling party, as has been true in the Communist countries." 

External link