Does a person have a right to property that was not justly acquired even if the consequences of holding that property promote the general welfare?
Robert Nozick didn’t think so. He wrote, “The justice of a given individual’s possession of and discretionary control over certain economic goods cannot be a function of that possession and control contributing to the general welfare or to any other overall social end-state or pattern. All such consequentialist assessments of holdings are ruled out of court. So, if there is any acceptable account of the justice of individual holdings, it must be a backward-looking account. The justification must depend upon how the holdings in question have arisen.”
Anirudh in a recent comment leads with the above quote. He then goes on to ask,
“In the context of the temple reclamation movement in India – even if the courts do recognize the mosques as built over land that was unjustly seized and acquired, and they try to pursue “just rectification of an unjust taking,” whom should the land be returned to? The original land and temple on it was probably built with royal patronage, so in that sense, should the land be returned to a Hindu organization or to the government?”
The basic principle we have to employ in resolving such matters is that of restitution. If someone steals, say, your watch, then the just action is to have the watch returned to you. What if someone stole your grandfather’s watch? Then, as your grandfather’s inheritor, the watch should be returned to you. That’s clear enough.
But what if some property held collectively — for instance, a temple held by a community — was taken by force by someone, say, an invading plunderer? And, what if the plunder happened centuries ago, and several generations have lived and died since the original plunder? Are the descendants of the plundered due restitution from the inheritors of the plunderers?
That’s a harder problem but not impossibly so. There is no moral justification for the inheritors of plundered property to continue to hold on to it. Even if we are unable to figure out who to restore the property to, we can be certain that the current owners don’t have a right to it. So what’s to be done?
Several schemes can be considered.
- The property is transferred to the community of the descendants of the plundered. This is problematic because it would be costly to identify them.
- The property could be transferred to the government. This is problematic because then in essence, the property becomes the private property of those in government.
I support a third scheme, which is actually in line with a broader scheme which I will defer for the moment. If you are interested, ask me about “Dhan Vapasi.”
The scheme is that all property that have been acquired through plunder should be methodically auctioned, and the proceeds from them be distributed to every citizen, regardless of whether they are the descendants of the plundered or the plunderers.
Let’s take an example. Suppose there’s a mosque that was built on top of a destroyed temple. It goes on the auction block, and the highest bidder is a Muslim organization. They pay and therefore become the legitimate owners. The proceeds of that sale gets paid out to every citizen. The government doesn’t get a penny of that.
This is a simple scheme. It takes in account the present value of the plundered property. The value of various plundered property would differ based on their location. A two-acre property in Mumbai would be hundreds of times more valuable than a twenty-acre property in Kamptee. The auction determines what’s the best alternative use of the property in an open market.
Who knows, given the amount of plundered property in India, perhaps this scheme would raise enough money that each Indian would get Rs 10k. That’s just the first order benefit; the second order benefit would be to bring currently underutilized property into its most productive use. This scheme is not only justified on economic grounds but it is also morally justified.
The sad fact we have to recognize is that the political leadership of India lack not only the moral sense to do what’s right but also lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the predictable murderous response to such a scheme of Indian Muslims. The same goes for the cretinous Indian judiciary.
But I should add that this pusillanimity and stupidity among the politicians and judiciary is not surprising if one realizes that they are a reflection of the underlying characteristics of the population in general. I don’t think Indians place too much value on resisting violence, and on seeking justice and fairness. They are quite ok with buckling under threats of violence and suffering tyranny so long as they are able to somehow survive.
“Give me freedom, or give me death,” proclaimed the American patriot Patrick Henry in 1775. That’s an unlikely motto for Indians. “Give me something to subsist on, like a gas cylinder and free food, and you can rule over me” is apparently the Indian equivalent.
Which brings me to the next point in Anirudh’s comment which relates to what is the right action to rectify the dispossession of Native American lands by European settlers of North America. That’s a very interesting point that I should address in a future post.
Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.
PS: (1) Thanks to Anirudh for the comment which prompted this post.
(2) The image at the top of the post is to illustrate a core conviction of mine that all property should be private property justly acquired.