This is a Marxist screed. And by that, I do not mean to be dramatic, portraying anything to the left of University of Chicago law & economics as Marxist. I mean, it is literally Marxist, objecting to modern law's emphasis on private rights:

> On the one hand, the law codes the original violence of enclosure, such that something that was everyone’s becomes one person’s legally protected private property in perpetuity.

For those not familiar with Marxism, a recurring grievance is "enclosure"--the process by which the commons (hunting and grazing land) became turned into private property. It's hard to respond to the article, given that doesn't actually say much of anything, but I wanted to highlight one passage in particular:

> In the liberal account of property rights, the crucial question is how far law and the courts can protect private property against the capricious, self-interested, and short-sighted acts of the government. Individual property must be protected, in this view, not only because of the inalienable right to enjoy what one owns without fear of damage or theft, but also because if there were no guarantee of this right, economic progress would be impossible. Few would make an investment in a business that couldn’t seek redress for major acts of vandalism or larceny.

The article is not wrong. This is the basic principle underlying American law and our Constitution. Where the article is wrong is to suggest that there is any problem with it. When the Soviet Union and China tried to undo "enclosure" and create communal farms, tens of millions of people died. To the extent these countries reduced inequality, they did it by making everyone poor. By contrast, country after country has gone from poor to wealthy through a simple formula: rule of law, protection of private property rights, and unleashing of capital.

I cannot emphasize enough that there are no proven alternatives to this legal framework. There are no wealthy countries that have legal codes that depart from this concept. Even "social democracies" like Denmark have Constitutions that provide:

> The right of property shall be inviolable. No person shall be ordered to cede his property except where required by the public weal. It can be done only as provided by Statute and against full compensation.

The Constitution of Sweden provides an even stronger guarantee, not only against expropriation, but against restrictions on use that significantly diminish a property's value:

> Art. 18. The property of every citizen shall be so guaranteed that none may be compelled by expropriation or other such disposition to surrender property to the public institutions or to a private subject, or tolerate restriction by the public institutions of the use of land or buildings, other than where necessary to satisfy pressing public interests. A person who is compelled to surrender property by expropriation or other such disposition shall be guaranteed compensation for his loss. Such compensation shall also be guaranteed to a person whose use of land or buildings is restricted by the public institutions in such a manner that ongoing land use in the affected part of the property is substantially impaired, or injury results which is significant in relation to the value of that part of the property.