European Union and private property

Private property, one of the cornerstones of liberalism. How does the European Union approach it in principle and should we fear for private property?

European Union
European Union

Private property - the basic principle

Private property is natural for man. Everyone has been a private owner since birth, from the moment we become de-facto physically independent of our mother.

From the moment our umbilical cord is cut, we own our body - skin, muscles, bones, brain. We are our own owner. It doesn't matter if we know about it or not. We own our own space.

If we own our body, our brain and our thinking and knowledge, then everything that follows from this is also our property. We use what we already own to create other goods and services, which we also legally own. Just as a cell is natural, a more complex organism is natural from it, as a result of which man is natural and what comes from his invention (which is also a product of nature).

The manifestation of our property right is our exclusive opportunity to decide on our property. So it's only our business whether we get tattooed, it's only our business whether we renovate the house, it's only our business if we do business, in what field and what prices we set.

State as private property

What is a state? Max Weber defined by the state as a human community that exercises a monopoly on the use of physical power within a given territory. The state is therefore a human community, in other words, the state is the private property of its citizens.

Every citizen is a shareholder in their state. We can acquire a share in state ownership by inheritance (birth) or by a request that will be granted.

"Public goods" and state institutions are thus the property of citizens. Therefore, the express consent of the majority of the owner-owners is needed if we want to get rid of some of our property rights against "our state". It is also the prerogative of owners-citizens to choose management to run the state.

However, this management (in most countries) does not have the vast majority of "shares", therefore, the state does not have the right to sell it. They can "sell" the state only with the express consent of the citizens-owners.

EU and the fight against property

The only admissible form how to convert "state" to "euro-union" is a general referendum. There is a referendum in this case manifestation of ownership citizen to his country. Management manages the company "inside", it can not decide to sell it "outside". This is the prerogative of the owner, which is in the state always a citizen.

If the "Liabon Treaty" transferred - or there is only a hypothetical possibility of transferring - some of the state's powers to the Euro-EU level, the only legitimate means of approving it was a referendum. However, as this was not the case, the treaty was imposed on the citizens of the country. Their property rights to their country were violated, and violence was applied. The principle of ownership was violated.

But that is just the beginning. If the EU allows itself today to violate the sovereign property rights of its citizens to its countries, what will come next? Property right it is the basis of freedom, it is its main building block. We own ourselves, we own our product work (salary), we own our thoughts, our "head". However, we can lose all this, because the EU has no problem with infringing property rights.

Internal versus free market

Another example of how the EU fights against private property is its trade and economic policy. It is focused on internal market, not to the free market. Due The EU is not a guarantor of free enterprise.

How is the principle of the "internal market" (which is also mentioned in the current coalition agreement) different from the principle of the "free market"? Internal market is a space, a large territorial block that is cut off from the world of customs. The idea of ​​the internal market is to strive for high regulation, different quotas (exports / imports from different territories) and the highest possible redistribution. The internal market is betting that there may be a center that can lead it drive. In order for this procedure to be as comfortable as possible, it is necessary to get rid of competition mainly from the outside of the world, which the center cannot influence (not that it did not try to do so).

The internal market is the pinnacle of protectionism. At the same time, however, it is the new name of the quest for a "centrally managed economy".

The idea of ​​the internal market is fundamental idea of ​​the EU. The EU never promotes a free market anywhere, but always internal market. However, the EU has a very well-developed internal market idea.

Not specific

Politicians have always wanted (to legitimize their work and existence) to increase their power. The centrally controlled economy or the idea of ​​the internal market is the perfect tool for the realization of their desires. However, the centrally managed economy is a greatly discredited concept. It has not been (and still is not) possible to put it into practice in the western (and even more so in the eastern) EU countries. However, the internal market is a seemingly fresh and unobtrusive idea.

However, possible distortions in market management would be risky for politicians. Therefore, it was created an artificial, non-national center to which everything can be seduced - Brussels. Politicians across Europe can, in the extreme, turn to Brussels as the "last culprit". And they will come out on their own without shells. The culprit is always vague.

Gradual expansion

However, a high degree of regulation and redistribution does not lead to a more efficient functioning of the market. It leads to his freezing, to stop development. However, the current situation without innovation still has a certain profit potential, which will be exhausted over time (due to market rigidity, ie due to regulations).

That is why more and more markets need to be integrated into the single internal marketto quantify the potential of frozen markets. As long as the idea of ​​an internal market emerges in the EU, Turkey does not have to worry about not joining the EU. Sooner or later, the Union will need Turkey. The internal market thus becomes a defense for further and stronger EU integration.

The problem, however, is that stronger integration enhances the effect of regulationsbecause stronger regulation more and more violates the principle of private property citizens. This is then a defense for violating the property rights of citizens at all levels, ie to increase regulation.

The question, however, is when the whole world is "internally integrated" under one center, kam will continue to expand? Internal market surrounded by barbed wire cells it survives only through more and more integration. It is thus logically unsustainable and it must collapsebecause space is limited and integrating does not go on indefinitely.

And what else?

The EU is clearly being the enemy of private property at all levels. Anyone with at least a shred of respect for property is an enemy of the EU. It is necessary to change the direction of Europe and limit the power of the center. Otherwise we are on a "great" path to slavery.

Comments are off.