Zane bc computer broke + Tim went to sleep :) - Property as Faculties

In this blog post, I want to the examine an extension of the "larger and juster" conception of property presented in James Madison's On Property. Privacy as stemming from property rights is a fascinating idea, and it made me want to explore other classes of rights that could stem from this expanded understanding of property rights. In particular, I thought Madison's discussion of one's property in their person explicitly touched upon one's "faculties" as an integral part of their personhood and thus property. What Madison intends by "faculty" is not entirely clear, but it seems like a reasonably generous definition of the word would lead to an interpretation of Madison's argument voluminous enough to contain a fundamental right to education or other opportunities that meaningfully increase one's cognitive abilities or knowledge.

In On Property, Madison states that a man "has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them." I take faculties to mean, as the several definitions in Merriam Webster report, one's inherent or acquires capability, power, or function--especially with respect to the powers of the mind. To be clear, this blends several definitions of faculty into a broader conception, which may not align with Madison's use or open itself up to further criticism. To paraphrase a favorite line of thesis writers, that is beyond the scope of this blog post. 

He later argues that even if a government abstains from taking "directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties (bold emphasis added)...that such a government is not a pattern for the United States." This was interesting to me because Madison discusses the importance of one's faculties to their personhood and property several times in the essay. Indeed, he even uses the word 'faculties' more times than he does the word 'liberty' (4 vs. 3, to be fair). It seems clear that one's faculties are of fundamental importance to the idea of property that Madison describes. 

Here, it seems as though this conception of faculties relates to the absence of constraints on our use of them or selecting the objects to/upon which we direct those faculties. Thus, a right to education (or even higher education) might not necessarily be obligated by a view of faculties as property since it entails a positive obligation to secure that right. That is, the action of providing, say, free college is not an action of removing constraints or limits that prevent a person from utilizing their capabilities; rather, it is an action that entails actively developing or providing one opportunities for utilizing their capabilities. However, I will argue that further reading of On Property reveals that Madison's model of faculties as property is more robust than it appears. 

Another important fact to note is that the development of people's faculties is a type of property that seems to almost transcend the Lockean proviso. After all, it's quite easy to leave "enough, and as good, left in common for others" with respect to knowledge or personhood in oneself. My developing of my own faculties doesn't seem to meaningfully deprive you of your ability to do so too. Granted, given the limited supply of educational institutions and their relatively high cost, the actual ability of people to generate knowledge, especially in lower-income backgrounds, is limited. Indeed, given the highly competitive, zero-sum nature of college admissions, we seem to have a situation in which the supply of faculty-improving is dominated by people from affluent, educated backgrounds who can afford extra tutoring and after school activities and who understand the ins-and-outs of institutions of higher education. Given this, is there really "enough" or "as good" being left in common for others? Perhaps, others have the chance to mix their labor with the learning materials in libraries, online courses, or other forms of education. However, this doesn't seem to represent an opportunity "as good" as, say, going to a top-tier liberal arts college. Indeed, it doesn't seem to represent an opportunity society views as "as good"; just think of how many jobs have, say, middle managers with years of experience but less formal education whose positions now require bachelor's degrees for new applicants. Thus, our current educational system doesn't represent an unjust taking of property so much as it does a manifestly unjust deprivation of it and of the ability to form/acquire that property. 

I think the argument can be extended a little further by considering the state of the public education system in America. Hawaii, as I discovered, is quite unlike the country in this respect. We have no local school boards, as all schools are administered by a statewide Department of Education and Board of Education which oversees the entire system. However, on the mainland as I am told, many school districts are funded through local or state tax sources that favor wealthier districts--especially in the form of increased revenue from local property taxes which are higher in more affluent areas. These inequalities in the educational system prevent the full development of an individual's faculties and deprive people of opportunities and knowledge that would permit the true "free use of their facilities" (Madison). This may seem like a stretch, but upon returning to the text; I believe that a reasonable construction of Madison's words lends to a condemnation of our current public educational system. In On Property, Madison asserts "that is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens the free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations." The "arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies" are, for example, policies that prevent students from attending other districts' schools, state monopolies on education that provide unequal benefits to citizens with purportedly equal standing, and in doing so deny citizens the free use of their faculties and the free choice of their occupations. The latter point is, I argue, another key feature of this discussion. Given the massive increase in demand for college degrees, and its increased importance as a signaling tool in the job market, unequal access to education systemically deprives people of the free choice of their occupations. This situation also diminishes their free use of the most fundamental mental faculties that are necessary for substantive engagement with the world and participation in a democratic society. 

I think there is an argument here to be made about the connection of one's faculties to their ability to even have property in their conscience, opinions, or speech. After all, an uneducated populace is one not likely to have robust Madisonian property in their, say, political or philosophical opinions or great depth in the public discourse. Indeed, the whole notion of free speech is incoherent if we talk past each other rather than at each other, and "free speech" loses its benefits if citizens lose or are deprived of the ability to meaningfully interact with that speech and create informed opinions on the issues of public importance.