Interestingly, the connection between private property ownership and political freedom developed in a roundabout way. As property owners grew richer from their commercial endeavors, the state sought to reap benefits via property taxation and this in turn helped to empower the people and Parliament. Pipes draws further connections between the evolution of the commonwealth, the British Empire, and burgeoning rights and freedoms for property owners. Chapter 4 addresses the history and evolution of property ownership in Russia. Russia's history is far different from that of England, especially with regards to property and its connection with individual rights and freedoms (or lack thereof, in the case of Russia). Pipes explains thoroughly the origin and impact of the patrimonial system in Russia, which established monarchs firmly as the property owners and precluded genuine private property ownership. Patrimony, Russian style, is clearly and simply defined as "the fusion of sovereignty and ownership," (p. 160). Ultimately, Pipes works from the hypothesis that "the critical factor in the failure of Russia to develop rights and liberties was the liquidation of landed property in the Grand Duchy of Moscow," (p. 160). This section provides a great deal of insight into Russian history from a refreshingly focused perspective and is the strongest chapter of Property and Freedom. Pipes also makes sure to contrast Russia's example with that of England on key...

First, Pipes continues to focus on Eastern Europe and navigates through the maze of political ideologies that each sought to restrict individual rights and freedoms by some kind of encroachment on private property rights. Each of the political systems such as totalitarianism and communism achieved its goals in a slightly different way but the core variables remain the same: the more the state infringes on the rights of individuals to own and profit from property, the more the state impinges upon personal freedoms and liberty.
Pipes cannot help but to interject his personal beliefs and biases, especially towards the end of the book. His diatribe against the modern welfare state makes sense on some levels; the author warns of impending doom if the state becomes too concerned with the appearance of benevolence to endure the rights of the propertied classes. Yet in this argument, Pipes fails to take into account issues related to social class, class conflict, and social justice. The author's argument would benefit from a more thorough analysis of those and other issues including how property rights and personal freedoms manifest in traditional, tribal cultures.