The History of Thanksgiving: Thanks, Property Rights

by | Nov 26, 2020 | LAW

This Thanksgiving, I give thanks for something our forebears gave us: property rights.

This Thanksgiving, I give thanks for something our forebears gave us: property rights.

People associate property rights with greed and selfishness, but they are keys to our prosperity. Things go wrong when resources are held in common.

Before the Pilgrims were able to hold the first Thanksgiving, they nearly starved. Although they had inherited ideas about individualism and property from the English and Dutch trading empires, they tried communism when they arrived in the New World. They decreed that each family would get an equal share of food, no matter how much work they did.

The results were disastrous. Gov. William Bradford wrote, “Much was stolen both by night and day.” The same plan in Jamestown contributed to starvation, cannibalism and death of half the population. So Bradford decreed that families should instead farm private plots. That quickly ended the suffering. Bradford wrote that people now “went willingly into the field.” Soon, there was so much food that the Pilgrims and Indians could celebrate Thanksgiving.

There’s nothing like competition and self-interest to bring out the best in people.

While property among the settlers began as an informal system, with “tomahawk rights” to land indicated by shaving off bits of surrounding trees, or “corn rights” indicated by growing corn, soon settlers were keeping track of contracts, filing deeds and, alas, hiring lawyers to sue each other. Property rights don’t end all conflict, but they create a better system for settling disputes than physical combat.

Knowing that your property is really yours makes it easier to plant, grow, invest and prosper.

In Brazil today, rainforests are destroyed because no one really owns them. Loggers take as many trees as they can because they know if they don’t, someone else will. No one had much reason to preserve trees or plant new ones for future harvests; although recently, some private conservation groups bought parcels of the Amazon in order to protect trees.

The oceans are treated as a commons, and they are difficult to privatize. For years, lack of ownership led to overfishing. Species will go extinct if they aren’t treated as property. Now a few places award fishing rights to private groups of fishermen. Canada privatized its Pacific fisheries, saving the halibut from near collapse. When fishermen control fishing rights, they care about preserving fish.

Think about your Thanksgiving turkey. We eat tons of them, but no one worries that turkeys will go extinct. We know there will be more next year, since people profit from owning and raising them.

As the 19th-century economist Henry George said, “Both humans and hawks eat chickens — but the more hawks, the fewer chickens; while the more humans, the more chickens.” (Sadly, even Henry George didn’t completely believe in private property. He thought land should be unowned, since latecomers can’t produce more of it. Had he seen how badly the commonly owned rainforest is treated, he might’ve changed his mind.)

Hernando de Soto (the contemporary Peruvian economist, not the Spanish conquistador) writes about the way clearly defined property rights spur growth in the developing world. Places without clear property rights — much of the third world — suffer. “About 4 billion people in the world actually build their homes and own their businesses outside the legal system,” de Soto told me. “It’s all haphazard and disorganized because of the lack of rule of law, the definition of who owns what. Because they don’t have (legally recognized) addresses, (they) can’t get credit.”

Without deeds, they can’t make contracts with confidence. Economic activity that cannot be legally protected instead gets done on the black market, or on “gray markets” in a murky legal limbo in between. In places such as Tanzania, says de Soto, 90 percent of the economy operates outside the legal system.

So, few people expand homes or businesses. Poor people stay poor.

This holiday season, give thanks for property rights and hope that your family will never have to relearn the economic lesson that nearly killed the Pilgrims.

3 Comments

  1. “Knowing that your property is really yours makes it easier to plant, grow, invest and prosper.”

    And one’s property begins with one’s life–one’s mind & body–and extends outward from one’s person to the fruits of one’s labors, whether mental or physical. Something neither the Right (“right to life,” indeed) nor the (New) Left (name it, from sign & smoking ordinances to “hate” crimes to the outright censorship of campus speech codes) wants to acknowledge.

    Property rights destroyed feudalism, brought down monarchies, cast aside indentured servitude & wiped out slavery.

    Property rights are the foundation on which all other rights rest and are a bridge from the ethics of rational egoism–in which Man’s life is the moral standard–to the politics of a constitutionally limited, republican government & the economic system consistent with that: lassez faire capitalism.

  2. But I think the Pilgrims divided up the land for private plots in a fairly equal or planned way, so it wasn’t really what right-libertarians advocate.

    Also, if private property depends on government, then the fruits of labor with private property are at least partially the government’s which justifies taxation.

  3. I get the impression that even objectivists (including this internet site) doesn’t emphasis this most fundamental of all rights – the right to life. It’s mentioned, but there seems to be more articles about trade and rights (i.e., the branches) rather than the trunk of the tree. I can’t help wondering whether many objectivists secretly begrudge this fundamental right themselves.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

John Stossel is author of No They Can't! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed. For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

SHOW PROFILE

What do you think?

We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.

We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 10,000 articles readable online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please do consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Related Articles

What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.

Voice of Capitalism

Free email weekly newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest