In this paper, I will argue that the institution of property must be defended. I will show that freedom depends on the ability to support oneself. Then, I will show that it follows that property is needed for one to support oneself.
Freedom is having independence, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Independence is generally defined by the ability to live without anyone else's influence or control. For example, most teenagers loathe their parents' rules and look forward to having independence from living on their own, and thus being out of their parents' control. So to have freedom is to have the ability to live without anyone else's influence or control. Those teenagers want freedom from their parents.
To live without someone else's influence or control is to be able for a person to provide for themselves. Without anyone else to influence or control one's life, they must provide for themselves. A person supports themselves by providing themselves with their necessities. It is a common know fact that necessities are food, shelter, and clothing and that these necessities are all tangible objects.
Property is something owned by someone according to Princeton University's WordNet. Food, shelter, and clothes are all property because they need to be owned by someone in order for them to be used. This argument was stated by John Locke in his The Second Treatise of Government and supported by many college political science professors, like .
Thus, food must be in someone's possession to be eaten, a house must have a shelter to live in it (they don't necessarily need to own it to live in it, but they do have to achieve the house) and a person must have clothes to wear them. F ...