More on "Property as Entrance"

Rob is (as usual) one step ahead of me in calling MOJ readers' attention to Penalver's interesting and important paper.  A quick thought:  I usually roll my eyes when people start invoking "third ways," but -- that said -- it strikes me that there is another way of thinking about property-and-freedom, in addition to the individualistic, even atomistic, "property as exit" (a model that Penalver treats in detail), and the more community-building, bonding, "property as entrance" (the model that Penalver proposes). 

I don't have a good name for the model (yet), but this third model would be build around the claim that property and property rights enhance and protect freedom not only by facilitating individuals' exit from community -- in Penalver's words, the idea would be that property does not only allow people to "exit from community into the protective cocoon of their stuff" -- by also by playing a structural role, and serving (what in the First Amendment context is sometimes called a) "checking function."  That is, property-as-mediating-institution complicates and thickens civil society, it sets up structures in between persons and the state.  In this way, as Penalver suggests, it facilitates the construction and development not only of communities, but also of authentic individual freedom, properly (i.e., not narrowly, in hyper-libertarian terms) understood. 

As I read Penalver, his alternative to the "property as exit" model might "go too far" in the other direction.  Even after taking to heart Penalver's criticism of "property as exit", it remains the case -- it seems to me -- that property does and should be regarded as a state-checking device.  However, by checking the state (or other "too big" aggregations of homogenizing power) property does not simply leave lonely individuals free in their cocoons, it leaves groups, associations, families, churches, and communities free to thrive.

Rick