I’ve been thinking about this past Memorial Day weekend and how all of us are free to purchase whatever we want and to do so in a manner and environment that allows us to decide independently how, when, and where we can do it. I believe to some degree we take for granted and forget how easy life is to excel, prosper and do and be whatever we want to be without any interference.
Buying real estate is one thing that comes to mind since in some other countries one has no right to possess their own home or investment property. China, Laos and Vietnam are Communist countries that do not allow personal ownership of property. I am quite sure those in the inside of government and those who have connections might have a way to circumvent the strict policies. Foreigners, too, are restricted from ownership in Vietnam, Mexico, Greece, and Thailand, but again it’s not what you know but who you know that allows those that are connected to sidestep the normal rules and layers of restrictions.
Communist countries, unfortunately, control property and don’t allow their citizens ownership (except Cuba, which changed its constitution in 2019 to allow one to own their own home and investment property while also assuring the central government’s authority over the regulation of production and land). However, foreigners cannot own property directly but use third parties indirectly to obtain ownership.
In Communist countries, the competitive spirit is squashed and the government controls almost everything that is consumed. However, Russians can use their wages to purchase their home and goods as needed. But whether it is a foreigner or citizen, one cannot own the land beneath the property which is controlled by the government. The value is more or less controlled by the state. It is much more difficult and takes more time to save to be able to be in a position to purchase due to the value of the Ruble. The exchange rate of one dollar equals 73.32 Rubles as the currency is far less valuable.
Romania has the world’s highest homeownership of 96 percent, followed by Singapore with 90.8 percent and Slovakia with 90.3 percent.
We as Americans have truly no restrictions on purchasing our own homes or investment properties as long as we have the ways and means to accumulate the necessary funds to close the transactions. We take for granted how free we are to amass our own individual wealth by ownership when some other countries do not provide that right to their citizens. The concept of appreciation and getting rich is extremely limited to those who are connected to the insider group.
Can you imagine what your life would look like if you couldn’t own your own home or an investment property? How would you accumulate long-term wealth? It would most likely have to be in ways that would be illegal in countries that restrict ownership of property. The Black Market proliferates where severe policy restrictions occur.
What would the United States look like if we had those restrictive policies in place? I am quite sure many would move out of the country. Our economy would seriously falter over time and would not be the once “free to earn and invest” in an unrestrictive environment that it once was. I believe that is why so many have come here and still yearn for the “American Dream” in being able to immigrate to the United States, which has now been more restricted in gaining U.S. citizenship.
A few questions come to mind if and when tax laws are altered and changed in the U.S. Over the next few years what effect will it have on our real estate? Will the benefits and values that currently exist be radically changed? Will owning one’s home and/or investment property be worth the time and effort? Are we at the crossroads of change that will adversely affect our economy and country?
My professional opinion is that those in charge must be made very carefully as to what changes are being considered and whether or not we lose or win the battle of fairness and equity. The distribution of wealth to those who truly deserve it because of their entrepreneurial, physically earned “sweat equity” efforts and those who do not deserve sharing should be a major factor to be considered. The future could be quite beneficial for a greater number of people or quite bleak if decisions are made to benefit only a small minority.
Philip A. Raices is the owner/Broker of Turn Key Real Estate at 3 Grace Ave Suite 180 in Great Neck. He has 39 years of experience in the Real Estate industry and has earned designations as a Graduate of the Realtor Institute (G.R.I.) and also as a Certified International Property Specialist (C.I.P.S). For a “FREE” 15 minute consultation, a value analysis of your home, or to answer any of your questions or concerns he can be reached by cell: (516) 647-4289 or by email: [emailprotected]
FAQs
Locke argued in support of individual property rights as natural rights. Following the argument the fruits of one's labor are one's own because one worked for it. Furthermore, the laborer must also hold a natural property right in the resource itself because exclusive ownership was immediately necessary for production.
Is the right to property universal? ›
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enshrines the right to property as follows: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
What does Hobbes say about property? ›
Pertaining to property rights, Hobbes' view is that mankind is entitled to no right of ownership: “(T)here be no propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but (only) that to be every man's that he can get; and for so long as he can keep it.”
Why should everyone have the right to own property? ›
America's Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely.
What was John Locke likely to argue about property? ›
While Locke argues that men have a right to create and enjoy their property, he also argues that there are limits to that right in the state of nature. The first limit is alluded to when he describes how property is created.
Does Locke agree with private property? ›
Locke's theory was an original one, offering a justification for the existence of private property despite the theological perspective that, as he wrote, “God… gave the world in common to all mankind.” He also defined property in a novel and influential way.
Is owning property a human right? ›
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” So declares article 17 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What are 5 universal rights? ›
Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
What is the meaning of universal right? ›
These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.
What is Aristotle's theory of property? ›
Aristotle believed that using one's property to aid friends was a great practice: “Doing favors and helping friends, guests or mates is most pleasant, and this only happens when property is private.” If everyone communally owns everything, no one can give something of their own to someone else.
While Rousseau understands property or possession in its most primitive forms as natural and, similar to Locke, derives it from individual labor, Rousseau stresses that property rights (and especially property rights in land) are strictly relational phenomena, and thus founded not on “nature” but on society.
What is the philosophy of property rights? ›
John Locke proposes his theory of property rights in The Second Treatise of Government (1690). The theory is rooted in laws of nature that Locke identifies, which permit individuals to appropriate, and exercise control rights over, things in the world, like land and other material resources.
Do people have the right to protect their property? ›
In general, Heller says a person may use reasonable force to defend themselves on their own private property when they believe an intruder may cause them harm. “Your home is your castle,” in the eyes of California law, Heller said.
How does Locke believe private property comes into the world? ›
These private property rights, according to Locke, are natural rights—not in the sense that men are born with them—but in the sense that, though they are acquired rights, they are acquired as a result of actions and transactions that men undertake on their own initiative and not by virtue of the operation of any civil ...
What does Locke believe about life liberty and property? ›
Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."
What does Locke mean by property quizlet? ›
Property is, in Locke's thought, is. the foundation of justice, and the line between order and chaos.
What is the theory of ownership? ›
The bundle of right of a person over a thing gives him ownership of the thing and the control so exercised by the person over that thing makes the thing the property of that person. The concept of ownership is of both legal and social interest.
