Below is an unedited transcription of this previously released podcast. Audio links: Topics and times: Transcription: The drama of The Will to Power This episode is inspired by my re-reading of Nietzsche’s The Will to Power. I’m reading the most recent translation, made by Professor R. Kevin Hill and published by Penguin in 2017. It […]

In the mid-19th century, the town of Peoria, Illinois, originally established as a French outpost in the 18th century, underwent a period of rapid expansion. Although not a newly founded settlement, its transformation during this period reflects a broader pattern seen across the American frontier. Within a few decades, it evolved into a regional agricultural and commercial hub. This was not the result of luck or central planning. The decisive factor was clear, recognized, and transferable property titles. Farmers knew that the land they cultivated belonged to them. Merchants felt secure investing in warehouses, mills, and river transportation. Families built homes with the expectation that their children would inherit the fruits of that effort. Where property was clearly defined, the future made sense.

This type of transformation was not an exception. It was the direct result of institutions that treated private property not as a political privilege, but as a right recognized by law. The history of modern civilization shows that societies prosper when individuals are able to plan for the long term, invest, and cooperate securely in an environment that encourages capital accumulation. In this way, private property does not emerge as a state concession, but as the foundation that makes peaceful coordination possible in a world of scarce resources.

In the United States, this understanding was present from the very beginning. Inspired by John Locke, the founders treated property as a condition of civil and economic liberty. This foundation was incorporated into concrete policies that shaped the country’s growth.

The Land Ordinance of 1785 represented a decisive institutional step. Until then, territorial disputes were common in frontier areas, as there was no standardized system for measuring, dividing, and registering land. The law addressed this problem by establishing a practical and uniform method: the territory would be divided into townships six miles square, subdivided into regular sections.

This arrangement had immediate effects. First, it drastically reduced boundary conflicts, as limits were clear and verifiable. Second, it facilitated access to property by creating titles that were understandable and nationally recognized. Third, it made it possible to use land as an economic asset: it could be sold, mortgaged, or inherited.

It is important to note that millions of acres were surveyed and made available to the market within a few decades. States organized under this system, such as Ohio and Indiana, experienced rapid population growth and increased agricultural productivity. Between 1800 and 1840, Ohio’s population rose from around 45,000 to more than 1.5 million inhabitants. This growth did not occur despite property rules, but as a consequence of them.

On the other hand, where similar rules did not exist, the outcome was different. In some regions of Latin America, including parts of Brazil, Mexico, the Andean region, Central America, and the Hispanic Caribbean, the absence of exclusionary rules, land concentration, and legal insecurity led to informal land concentration, constant disputes, and productive underutilization. The land existed, but it did not function as capital.

The Homestead Act of 1862, signed by Abraham Lincoln on May 20, 1862, encouraged settlement of the West by allowing ordinary citizens to acquire federal land through productive occupation. Each family could claim up to 160 acres, provided that they lived on and worked the land for a minimum period. The law also expanded access to property by creating an institutional pathway through which millions of individuals, regardless of their particular circumstances, including immigrants, single women, or widows heading their households and, in the post-Civil War period, freed African Americans, could acquire land. People were enticed to settle Westward with the promise of land ownership, something many could not afford in the East, or in the case of immigrants, in their home countries.

At the time, approximately 270 million acres, about 10% of the territory of the United States, were distributed through this mechanism. Millions of families became independent landowners. Agricultural production grew, cities emerged along railroads, and productive chains formed spontaneously.

The process was not perfect, as nothing in life is, but it challenged the idea that territorial expansion would necessarily lead to chaos. In most cases, order emerged from local institutions, common law, and the clear expectation of respect for property. In many regions, levels of violence were lower than in the urban centers of the East, where population density and legal instability were greater.

These historical episodes illustrate a clear principle: when people know that they will be able to keep the fruits of their own effort, they invest, cooperate, and innovate. Property connects action and consequence. As such, it makes economic planning, capital accumulation, and the division of labor possible.

By contrast, in economies where this link is broken through confiscation, inflation, or legal insecurity, opportunities are reduced. People begin to prioritize the short term, capital deteriorates, and production declines. The agricultural collapse of Zimbabwe after the 2000s is an example of this, and, unfortunately, the pattern still repeats today, even if on a smaller scale. Beginning that year, the Zimbabwean government implemented a program of forced expropriation of commercial farms, many of which were highly productive, lacked adequate compensation, and had no institutional system to guarantee stable new titles for occupants. The rupture of property rights eliminated incentives for investment, leading to the flight of capital as families sought to protect their own assets, taking with them technical knowledge and thereby paralyzing entire sectors of production. As a result, agricultural output fell rapidly, turning a country that had once been a net food exporter into one dependent on humanitarian aid.

Although few countries have followed this path so abruptly, the pattern reappears, even if on a smaller scale, whenever institutional predictability is shaken. Where property ceases to be secure, investment retreats, productivity falls, and development becomes unsustainable.

In the United States, periods of greater interventionism coincided with lower growth, while eras of greater institutional predictability attracted immigration, investment, and sustained increases in income.

The defense of private property does not need to be presented in dense or controversial philosophical terms. It can be understood in practical terms. Where there are clear titles, there is investment. Where there is investment, there is productivity. Where there is productivity, there is an increase in opportunity and prosperity among citizens.

In sum, the American “miracle” was not a historical accident. It was the predictable result of institutions that chose clear rules over arbitrariness, stable rights over political concessions. Preserving these institutions is not merely an economic or legal matter. It is a way of preserving the conditions that make civilization possible.

1. Legislating Reality

“Legislating reality” is a favorite thought pattern on the left. This is the error of using practical aims, including moral or political goals, to determine what the descriptive facts are, or what one may say the descriptive facts are. The former disjunct is fallacious; the latter is tyrannical and foolish.

Note: I’m not talking ab…

Read more