Personal Property Is Private Property

There is no substantive difference between personal property and private property, and I'm getting really tired of hearing about it.

Image Source: Pixabay

It's the ultimate distinction without a difference. It's the ultimate trump card that socialist and communists play when presented with the impossibility of common ownership of the means of production. And yet, it persists. Like the plague, it just refuses to completely die out. So, in the hope of clearing up this confusion, let's explore why personal property is, in fact, private property, and why trying to differentiate between the two is disingenuous, at best.

First, let's start by defining terms. Since property seems to be one of the most contentious philosophical and ethical issues of all time (right up there with when life begins), it is extremely important to define terms so that everyone's on the same page. I hold that there is no difference between personal and private property, so I'm going to rely on definitions supplied by Marxists, as they're the originators of this distinction in the modern era.

• Personal Property: According to Marxism, personal property is considered anything intended for personal consumption or individual use (such as a toothbrush, a pencil, a personal computer, a house etc.). This also includes goods produced by an individual for individual use (such as finished food products, hand tools, furniture, etc.).
• Private Property: According to Marxism, private property is considered anything that is a means of production. In particular, Marxism describes private property in terms of means that are utilized by workers to produce higher order goods, where the person who owns the means makes the full profit from the production of those goods and pays the workers who make them a wage for their labor. However, virtually anything can be considered a means of production if it's used in the production of higher order goods.

Alright, so we've established that personal property is stuff that you own and use every day, and private property is stuff that can be used to produce other goods. It totally works, right? There's no logical inconsistency between these two, and the separation holds up, right?

Not so fast there, Turbo-Lenin.

Let's walk that back for a minute. If I own a computer and use it for personal use, say surfing the internet to learn how to play the piano or check out funnyordie.com, then my computer qualifies as personal property. If, instead, I use my computer to produce literature, which I then try to sell to others via Amazon or my own website, that computer is now a means of production. If I use my house to just live in and as a shelter for myself and my family, it's personal property. If I decide to let someone run a daycare out of my home, or use it as a pet shelter where one can adopt pets out of, in exchange for a use fee, it's now a means of production. If I own a car for getting around from place to place, it's personal property, but if I decide to offer rides to people in exchange for money or compensation, it is a means of production.

This actually can be applied to virtually everything that is labeled personal property. The same scenario involving the computer can be applied to a pencil or pen. A hammer can be a means of production if it is used to produce a house or furniture for others in exchange for money for your time. Even your body can be considered a means of production, as you can use it to produce higher-order goods. If you attempt to examine it critically, the distinction falls apart completely. Aside from the distinction failing on applicability grounds, it also fails on principle, as all of that private property can also, conceivably, be personal property.

The only way to separate personal and private property is by regulating use, and the only way to effectively regulate use is with a central authority that arbitrarily determines what can be used for what ends. You can call it "the community" if you want, but it invariably boils down to the same thing, regardless of what you call that central authority. You are only free to do what the central authority says you are free to do.

Wanna know what a central authority is anathema to? Anarchy. If you're an anarchist and try to claim socialism as an economic philosophy, you're fooling yourself.

---

Andrei Chira is a vaper, voluntaryist, and all-around cool dude. Formerly a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, he now spends his time between working at VapEscape in Montgomery County, Alabama, contributing to Seeds of Liberty on Facebook and Steemit, writing short fiction, and expanding his understanding of...well, everything, with an eye on obtaining a law degree in the future.