Property Rights in the Scenario

Property Rights

In the scenario the youngest son Danny says to the other children: "You're all forgetting that this property isn't yours! it's Mom's! She and she alone should decide what she wants to do with it. This whole conversation should not have taken place, and I won't be a party to any further discussion of the division of Mom's property." Danny's words echo the philosopher John Locke's statement that it is the individual who has the right to administer his or her property. Property ownership is part of every human being's intrinsic or natural rights. All human beings have a right to life, liberty, and property, free from pressure from the sovereign or any other administrating government authority. In other words, a person should be free to make good or bad decisions with his or her property. If a wealthy eccentric wants to leave his or her estate to their beloved companion dog, that is their right under American law, which has its roots in British common law, according to Louis Wright. According to Locke, the American government cannot decide that there are better uses for a piece of privately owned property, so the law protects Lillian's right to property.

Even though Edna may have helped her mother more than the other siblings during Lillian's final years, Lillian may have other considerations that she wishes to address when dispensing of her property and that is also her right. Lillian should not be pressured by the children to leave her property to one child over the others, according to Locke's view of natural rights. This pressure might cloud her judgment, as she does not want to create family discord during her final days even though she has agreed to go along with what her children think is best. Adopting a 'hands off' policy would be the fairest thing for the children to do, and in keeping with Locke's philosophy of government that a government should take a 'hands off' policy in regards to property in most instances.

Of course, even an objective observer might want Lillian to have more sensitivity to the needs of her some of the children more than others. Locke also stresses the impact of the community on protecting individual rights, given that it is the community that produces the government and the system of laws that enables property rights to be enforced. Without Edna, Lillian probably could not have kept her property after her husband died. The elderly woman could not have lived alone and managed such a large house without assistance. However, under the law Lillian is not obliged to follow Edna's wishes. The laws that free us from the dangers of living in a state of nature and a state of 'survival of the fittest' described in "The Second Treatise on Government" give human beings the rights of property ownership, and the right to dispense with property, without it being taken by a sovereign to serve his own purposes, the purposes of the state, or the purposes of church morality, without due cause. Edna might have a moral right to property, but not a legal right, particularly since she has lived rent-free, along with her husband while caring for her mother. Frank S. Meyer in "Western Civilization: The Problem of Political Freedom" would also add that the state has no business in determining who is morally fit to possess property, the state should only exist in a limited capacity to support property rights from being seized by force, which might happen in a 'state of nature' when a wealthy parent dies.

However, if Lillian is not willing to chose between her children and take sides, Locke would likely suggest that a 'majority rules' system apply, similar to that which Mike suggests. Two of the children, Janet and Mike, favor dividing the property equally between all of the children, in contrast to Edna. This is more democratic than 'republican' in spirit, and while Locke might support it to some degree, Meyer very likely would not and state that the property owner's will alone should prevail. It should be noted that in contrast to Danny, the other children view their mother's decision in more emotional, moral terms than Locke might, as rather than invoke the law and property rights they stress considerations such as who is neediest and who has given the most to Lillian.

These concerns echo John Winthrop, who wrote about "A Model of Christian Charity." Winthrop focused on what members of the community should feel is their obligation, rather than the law. Do not take more than you need, he counsels, but do not deprive your family: "If the time and occasion be ordinary he is to give out of his abundance. Let him lay aside as God hath blessed him. If the time and occasion be extraordinary [poor], he must be ruled by them; taking this withal, that then a man cannot likely do too much, especially if he may leave himself and his family under probable means of comfortable subsistence." Winthrop would likely agree with Mike's complete proposal, to give more to Janet, because Janet is the person in greatest need. She could not help her mother as much as some of the other children, not because she was not willing, but because of her own trying circumstances. He might also point out that Edna has had her own needs taken care of, such as her housing and food, while she and her husband Bob have been living with her mother. Also, giving back to her mother while she was capable of doing so should not be seen as a way of inheriting Lillian's property, but part of her obligation as a human being with the ability to support another human being. Other children may have wanted to enjoy the benefits of living rent-free or the emotional benefits of spending time with their mother during her final days on earth, but they could not -- Edna could and should not demand payment in exchange.