Property, more specifically private and public property are everywhere. Stop right here and think of something that is not owned by anyone. Hard to come up with anything right? Air does not belong to anyone and neither does most of the oceans. Abstract or cultural goods are also often not owned by anyone. Language for instance, or the believe in a higher power. Still as far as physical things go everything is owned by someone or at the very least by a legal entity such as a company or a government. It is therefore hardly surprising that we accept property and more importantly private property as a given constant similar to gravity or the fact that milk always boils over the second you are not looking. Not only do most humans accept property as a constant, but they also accept the methods of determining what things belong to whom. In this essay I want to argue two points. First, I want to show that there is no natural property or an objective way to determine what is whose property. Instead, we as society decide what property is, what can be owned and who gets to do so. This will lead me to my second point where I want to outline why I believe expropriation to be a misguiding term that presupposes a natural ownership of property and by so doing hides the idea that an “expropriation” is not the act of taking away property but the societal act of renegotiating what property is.           

Let us begin with some common conceptions about property. First it is important to note that although property was in fact a constant for most of human history, the understanding of it differed dramatically. Communist or anarchist societies highlight this well since property in these societies is considered to belong to everyone or those who most need it. Property is not absent but collectivized, which poses a fundamentally different understanding than the one we have today. In capitalist countries and nation states property plays a crucial role in deciding who owns what. In these systems arises the distinction between public and private property.  Private property is owned by individuals or non-elected legal entities like companies. Public property is owned by an elected body such as a government. I find it somewhat misleading to call property owned by dictators or single party systems public since it fulfils roughly the same criteria as private property, the only difference being that the gracious owner decided to share his property with the public. In the contemporary understanding of property, the ability to use it does not determine whether it is ours. Just because I am using your pen after taking it from you does not make it mine. Property as we understand it today is instead based on the idea of ownership. If you own something, then it is your property. Thus, when we discuss common conceptions about property the real question should be when someone gains ownership over a good. A second question then is what can constitute a good according to our current societal understanding.

So how can anyone claim to own something? The short answer is that any way that other people are willing to accept works. In our contemporary world anything that we put work in belongs to us, or anything that was given to us through a contract. Salaries are a good example where you agree on a contract with a company where you give them your labour and they give you money which is then yours. Similarly, when you go to a shop and by something you also enter a contract where you receive a good in exchange for money. Now it is important to note that the only reason why these things are yours is because the large majority in your society accepts that it is in fact yours. Ownership is thus a consequence of labour and contracts. Furthermore, you cannot own everything. We agree today that owning people should not be a thing so even when you did buy them, and they let themselves be bought without coercion or a dire need for money (which is of course not how it worked historically) you do not get to own a person. That is despite going through the same process as any other product you could acquire. Thus, for private property, we can say that ownership can be achieved by either putting labour into something or entering contracts, but we can only own things that our society deems as ownable.

For public goods, or property owned by an elected government, determining ownership is even simpler. Something is public property if the majority decides that it is. Maybe there is some constitution that prevents decisions about ownership that discriminate against minorities so then you might need a two thirds majority or something similar, but you get the gist. The people decide what is public property. Anything can be public property. Even things outside the country in which the elected government resides can be public property you just have to take it from other people.

Here we get to a funny problem. If I say this is my property and you say its yours, who is right? Within states we can turn to the majority and see what they think but in interactions between states that is harder. Why? Because there is no one to enforce a majority decision. That brings us to the last point I want to raise before turning to expropriation. Unless we have a universally accepted understanding of property or ways in which to settle disputes (like courts or discourse) there is really no way to enforce property except for violence imprisonment and death. You say the orange juice in the fridge is yours, I say it is mine. We discuss for a bit, and you say it’s yours because you bought it, and I say it’s mine because I need it more. So, we turn to society, and they decide in your favour. But I still believe the orange juice is mine, I am super thirsty and desperate for a glass of orange juice. So, I take it out of the fridge and start drinking it. What can you do? Either you do nothing and accept that it is my orange juice after all.  Or you use violence. You call the police and tell them how your crazy flatmate stole your orange juice. I will not give up my orange juice, so I fight with the police until they overwhelm me and put me in handcuffs. If I repeatedly challenge property in this way I will likely end up in prison. Property cannot exist without violence unless everyone accepts the terms and conditions of ownership or trusts the means of settling disputes. Since that is currently not the case you constantly use violence or the threat thereof to keep ownership over property that you think is yours. Now neither you nor me are willing to die over an orange juice but when it comes to a conflict between nations things are a bit different. What is at stake here is not just some delicious refreshing glass of orange juice but the land that people live on. Here people are willing to die to enforce their ownership. And it’s not just land. Think of the American civil war where half a nation fought, mostly to maintain their right to own a PoC. In modern capitalist systems, property needs violence (and in most others too).

Turning to my last point I want to touch own why expropriation is a misguiding term. If we accept that property is dependent on ownership and ownership is determined by whatever theory most people prefer, then agreeing to take someone’s property is simply the process of renegotiating ownership. Something was owned for reasons we decided on and now we changed the rulebook, and you do not own it anymore. At this point there is no property to take away anymore, nothing to expropriate. Now this might sound like plain semantics, but I think it is important to highlight that private property and ownership are not some natural things, but it is something we made up and is subject to change. The term expropriation how its currently used undermines this notion by making it seem like natural property is being taken away for one reason or the other.  What is happening in reality though is that something which was considered the property of someone is their property no longer. The terms of what determines ownership have changed. The moment that happens, there is no property to take away anymore.   

Lastly, I wated mention that initially my plan for this post was to discuss the inconsistencies of our current understanding of property but in writing this I realized how redundant that is. If we as society accept the inconsistencies of how we determine ownership, then who cares if the inconsistencies exist or not. It is not about having a consistent theory of property instead it is about having one that people agree on. A consistent theory might be convincing but it’s not what is relevant (I would also like to bring up the idea that it is the inconsistencies that might make our current understanding of property and ownership so attractive). I think it is also important to consider the reasons for why we accept one theory of property over another. Drawing on major philosophical theories I think we can make a distinction between output-based and input-based theories. In short do we care about the terms of ownership producing a certain output (for example functioning capitalist systems and global markets), or do we care about the input, which means expressing our contemporary understanding of justice and fairness in our terms of ownership without much consideration for output.

I want finish by saying that there is no natural ownership. What is and is not your property is, on a societal level, up for discussion so we can decide who gets to own what.