The Age-Old Conflict Between Property and People

Has political identification become synonymous with sports team identification, with the democrats and republicans being the two arch rivals in a blood sport? Is this what we now call “tribalism?”

What’s really at the heart of the division in American society these days?

And who are the good guys in this ongoing debate? Who’s right?

I’ve been trying to apply some big-picture thinking to this dilemma. What I came up with might surprise you…

I believe what’s really going on is part and parcel of the age-old conflict between property and people. If you think back through history you will notice that this conflict has always been present and has invariably led to societal problems. The problems tend to arise when those who have all the property treat those who have none unfairly to an extent that becomes intolerable. And we may be nearing that point, again.

Capitalism is based on the idea that property should be privatized and traded between active participants in a free market. No one should be denied access per se into this market. However, some are unable to participate to the extent of others because they lack the economic power to do so. Therein lies the problem with the capitalist ideal. From the outset there are those who have greater ability to participate than others, often due to non-meritorious factors, such as birthright, heritage, or color of skin. The playing field is thus far from level and that disequilibrium tends to become greater with time.

Government should serve to both protect the property rights guaranteed in the capitalistic system and to ease out some of the imbalances that invariably crop up in such a system.

This push and pull naturally gives rise to political division. Those in favor of unfettered property rights decry any interference with the “free” market by government. Those who believe property rights are less important than human rights applaud government interference that smooths out the imbalances and resulting inequality.

Is one side right and the other wrong?

The point of this post is not to pass judgement on either, but only to identify the problem and suggest a better way to deal with it than outright civil war.

Before you think to yourself that I might have been a tad hyperbolic with that last statement, consider history. The civil war was at its heart based on the very conflict I am speaking of. The south did not want the government interfering with their rights to property, i.e., slaves. The north regarded the institution of slavery to be a grave derogation of human rights. The division became so deeply entrenched that a war was fought over it in which Americans killed other Americans…over 600,000 of them. Incidentally, that’s about 1/2 of Americans killed in all the wars our nation has ever been engaged in. Civil wars tend to be the nastiest (and deadliest) of all wars.

Could the current division result in something similarly catastrophic?

You bet it could.

And in this case, I believe both sides in this age-old conflict between property and people do in fact have something in common. And that is that we’re all human and therefore have a basic human desire for freedom and dignity. We all want to be free to participate in a system that guarantees the right to own private property. That’s the stuff of the American Dream, right? We all want to get ahead in life.

But we also all want basic human dignity. And most of us do not like it when that is denied to us, or to others, especially when it’s unfairly denied.

I realize there are nuances that I’m not addressing. That the issue is far more complicated than this post makes it seem. But sometimes simple solutions are the best ones. In fact, most of the time that’s the case. At least that’s been my experience.

The solution I’m suggesting is to recognize the human-ness in those you disagree with. To recognize that what it all comes down to is that we all really want the same things, just in different degrees, or we have different notions about how to achieve those things.

In that light, Trump supporters are not bad people. Being from the south I have many friends who are ardent Trump supporters. In fact, I just had one of them pay me a visit here in Costa Rica for a few days. I always try to stay away from making harsh political judgements that could provoke unnecessary conflict in those face-to-face situations. Instead I sit back and listen and try to understand where the other person is coming from. In fact, my doing so has inspired the post you are reading right now.

I see on Facebook and other social media that quite the opposite is happening. Both sides are quick to condemn the other. We engage in exchanges that we probably wouldn’t engage in were we face to face. The problem is that the debate is becoming so heated that face-to-face confrontation is creeping in and becoming more of a norm. The next step from here could in fact be civil war. Again, it wouldn’t be the first time that has happened.

What I am therefore suggesting is to (1) recognize the true source of the problem, i.e., the age-old conflict between property and people; and (2) find common ground in the midst of that conflict based on the fact that we all are people, and as people, deep down, we all want the same things, i.e., freedom and dignity.

Does that make sense?

In essence, what I’m saying is that maybe there’s not some evil conspiracy fomenting the ideas that you don’t agree with. Maybe what’s really at the heart of the division is the age-old conflict between property and people and the different perspectives people have about it.

Here’s a short video I shot the other day in the spirit of Facebook-inspired conflict-resolution…