Will Cryptocurrency Bring about a Rebirth of Property Rights?

(Mises)—The right to property is considered a fundamental human right, recognized worldwide, as stated in international human rights documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is historically linked to natural rights. The Declaration of the Rights of Man regarded property as “an inviolable and sacred right.”

According to Shane Courtland, Gerald Gaus and David Schmidtz, while classical liberals agree on the importance of private property, their views range from nearly anarchist to those advocating for significant state involvement. Nonetheless, property rights are generally seen as first-generation rights, intended to limit state power, and protect individuals from expropriation.

In contrast, the emergence of the social state has led to a relativization of individual rights in favor of alleged collective rights, aiming for the so-called “social justice.” This shift means that, although property rights remain “fundamental,” they are now subject to numerous limitations and conditions, diminishing their absolute nature. Modern constitutions, like the Brazilian Constitution in several articles reflect these restrictions, suggesting that property is now a relative right rather than an absolute one.

Real-world examples, such as Brazil’s low score on the Economic Freedom Index regarding property rights and legal constraints on property ownership—classified as “repressed,” with a score of 49.1 out of 100—illustrate these limitations. Issues like land expropriation without due compensation in Brazil and even the Executive Order 6102 in the US further demonstrate the constraints placed on property rights.

Monetary Assets as an Expression of Property

Precious metals and other commodities played a significant role in the evolution of money, as the use of widely-demanded goods facilitated the emergence of exchange mediums, as Carl Menger explained. The rise of financial intermediaries contributed to the universalization of exchange methods. Over time, states began to control money, establishing regulations and creating currency. The final abandonment of the gold standard in the US in 1971 marked a shift to fiat money, backed solely by political trust.

Fernando Ulrich points out that individuals have long been restricted in their choice of currency, being compelled to use state-issued money that is often devalued. Friedrich von Hayek criticized governments for failing to provide sound money and abusing their powers when not constrained by the gold standard. In any case, given its benefits as a medium of exchange, money remains a primary expression of property rights, granting holders significant power over other market assets, both in the present and across time, as stated by Menger.

Disadvantages of State-Controlled Currency

Friedrich von Hayek argued that monetary policy is a significant cause of economic instability, noting that managing public finances and regulating currency are often conflicting goals. The combination of these tasks under the same authority has led to disastrous consequences, making money a primary driver of economic fluctuations and facilitating uncontrolled public spending. Hayek stresses the urgency of separating fiscal and monetary policies to preserve a functioning market economy and individual freedom.

Another issue with state monopoly over currency is the erosion of individual control over money. State regulation can impose restrictions on currency usage. Hayek warns that government control over international currency and capital movement threatens both the global economy and personal freedom. Historical instances, like the confiscation of individual savings in Brazil or confiscation of gold in the US, exemplify these risks. Saifedean Ammous links fiat currency issues to the relativization of property rights, asserting that individuals never fully control state money; they merely possess it at the government’s discretion.

Bitcoin and Its Impact on Contemporary Legal Order

The shift from gold standard to fiat currency has allowed unchecked state monetary issuance and debt. Friedrich von Hayek argued that while historical government control of money seemed justified, it has led to significant problems, including monopolistic practices that limit consumer choice.

Recent technological advancements, particularly the emergence of Bitcoin and its blockchain system, challenge this monopoly by enabling the creation of “private currencies,” allowing the proposal of Hayek to become true. Bitcoin operates as a digital asset that does not rely on state control or centralized control of any kind and offers individuals a means to manage their financial assets without intermediaries.

Bitcoin is a scarce digital asset, as it exists uniquely within its blockchain, which prevents double-spending. Its supply is regulated by a decentralized network (with thousands of nodes worldwide that are also responsible for the network integrity), ensuring that it cannot be manipulated like fiat currency. Bitcoin can serve as a store of value, and its market acceptance reinforces its utility as money.

Transactions can occur in a peer-to-peer (P2P) manner or through exchanges, although the latter introduces intermediaries, slightly undermining one of Bitcoin’s core principles. However, users can transfer their holdings to private wallets to regain that direct control.

In that sense, Bitcoin provides absolute ownership and control over assets, embodying the purest form of property rights. It operates independently of state backing, allowing individuals to use it as money regardless of official currency definitions. True economic freedom requires the ability to negotiate based on mutually-agreed terms without government monopoly on currency issuance.

Conclusion

The decentralized nature of Bitcoin, stored across a global network, enhances its independence from state authority, reaffirming classical property rights. The emergence of Bitcoin and its blockchain structure revitalizes property rights, providing a crucial point of resistance against repeated violations and relativizations of these rights, bringing them closer to their classical concept of being inviolable.