The development of the distribution of income and wealth has become increasingly unequal. This is due to the controversial idea of private property as a human right. Private ownership should instead be seen as a matter that we can democratically decide on and can redistribute.
In Sweden, 2024 the richest 5 percent 60,3% % of national wealth. In The United States owned 2023 the richest 1% own 30% of America's assets.
That this development can continue is due, in my opinion, to the fact that so many people believe that all property is honestly acquired by gift or purchase with money from a job well done.
This goes hand in hand with the neoliberal idea that tax is theft. The MUF started this idea in 2008 when they reported the Social Democrats' economic policy spokesperson Thomas Östros to the police for preparation for theft. This is because Östros wanted to raise the tax by SEK 70 billion. MUF's press secretary claimed that the police report was made with a twinkle in the eye. But with all the tax cuts and privatizations that the Alliance has done, it must be called neoliberal. The neoliberals believe in the Night's Watch State. This is a state that has privatized society as much as possible except for the judiciary and military in order to keep taxes down as much as possible. "How the state should be financed is a question that is debated among neoliberals, because the basic position of neoliberalism is that tax is theft." ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nattväktarstat ).
The majority defines ownership
There are problems with such an uncritical belief in a legitimate property right. During my law studies I was taught that legal ownership arises in two ways. The first way mentioned above takes a number of forms, such as purchase, gift, salary or inheritance from the previous legitimate owner. These are called legal prisoners. The other way is occupation. It is when we appropriate something that lacks a previous owner, for example when we pick mushrooms in the forest. But the first way, in which most fortunes are made today, can only be traced back in the first place to a general state of wrongful occupation. Otherwise, one must believe that a higher power started the chain of transmission. At some point, for the first time, a human put a flag in the ground and exclaimed: "This is my country." This is an example of an original state of unlawful occupation. It should have been that of the majority of the people, that is. the group's acceptance of this claim which determined whether the ownership claim would be respected. I believe that any ownership claim, in order to remain legitimate, must depend on group acceptance. Therefore, it should be the majority of the population that must decide whether private property rights are to be respected. It should only do so if it benefits the same. Even the philosopher Rousseau (1712-78) believed that the first man to fence his farm was deceiving those around him when he made them accept this encroachment on land that did not belong to any individual.
The research review "The dawn of everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow claim based on the empirical evidence they found that societies have always alternated between inequality and equality throughout the ages. But it is a late invention with this institutionalized equality we have for a few centuries today. The fact remains: ownership is up to the people to vote on.
What does it lead to if ownership is not a human right? That it is something we democratically agree on the forms for and can renegotiate? Which form of society is best based on this view of the nature of private ownership?
Politics over the economy
Communism is possible. This social system where the state owns the means of production (all factories, machines, banks, etc.) fits well with my thesis that private property is a form of borrowing from the originally common nature. The problem is that communism, both correctly and incorrectly, is associated with inefficiency and the absence of essential human rights.
Neoliberalism is possible. Neoliberal society is characterized by unregulated competition. Everyone can win as well as lose everything. Thus, the maximum number of needs of as many individuals as possible must be satisfied. The problem is that the neoliberal system seems to be structured in such a way that, after an initial relative equality, a small part of the population collects an increasingly large part of the pie. It is difficult to argue that a neoliberal society gives much back - except to the elite.
Safety net and freedom of choice
Reform-oriented social democracy in e.g. the Swedish red-green parties' withdrawal is possible and, in my opinion, the social system that works most fairly and efficiently. It is a social system halfway between neoliberalism and communism. Like communism, it offers a safety net for everyone but at the same time an increased share of the pie for those who want to work harder or take risks as entrepreneurs. In addition, the Scandinavian social democracy is probably the social system of the three discussed that has least violated human rights or led to war.
Whichever model one chooses, I would like to claim that the neoliberal argument that "tax is theft" fails. Now if the people democratically define ownership, then it should be included in the transfer of the common property to the individual in exchange for society. Today it is levied as a tax.
Economics not superior to politics
Some argue that politics must conform to economic power. On the contrary, the economy should be there to serve the people, politics and society. The people can start by, through the state apparatus, heavily taxing part of the surplus of the richest and managing this in, for example, state funds. Too great a surplus in the hands of a few is hardly beneficial to the group. We can redistribute radically.
That tax is theft is the basic hypothesis of the neoliberal Alliance project, which constantly wants to force lower taxes and worse social security on us. In the long run, this leads to the fact that in both the public and private sectors, fewer and fewer are allowed to do more and more under increasingly worse conditions. That argument is based on a lie about the origin and legitimacy of property rights.