For this post, I would like to share an interesting take on the institution of property I read recently. Thomas Aquinas, one of Western philosophy’s most influential writers, put forth the essential idea that divine law and natural law aim at the common good. Property depends on said law to exist; therefore property must also aim at the common good. So, what I would like to take a look at is whether this proposition makes sense. 

Is Thomas Aquinas making any sense? Let’s break it down. Does the law aim at the common good? Yes, I believe that it certainly should. Law exists to maintain order in a society such that society as a whole benefits. Does property depend on law? Not exactly. Property as we know it in the modern world certainly does. The buying, selling, and use of property could not occur in the way it does today if not for legal institutions. The exception is that you can theoretically have property without law, that is in total anarchy, you could have property. Basically, if you were powerful enough, you would be able to establish a property line much like wild animals do. It’s not the same thing though, and can more or less be tossed out. Lastly, should property also aim at the common good? I’m not sure I agree in the same way that Thomas Aquinas had in mind. I agree with the statement, but it doesn’t reach the same conclusion. Aquinas’s essential conclusion is that private property ought to be used for the common good. I wouldn’t go that far. I believe that the institution of property ought to be aimed at the common good, but that doesn’t place an obligation upon someone to charity. What I mean is that property laws and rights ought to be organized in a way that facilitates opportunity, security, and growth for every individual. The institution of property should not be skewed against one person or another in such a way that they are barred from the same level of opportunity or security as a peer.

_{Photo by Sarah Moon on Unsplash}