Property Rights are All Important: The Economics of The Lorax

While there have been lesson plans written around Dr. Suess's The Lorax, they have tended to centre around what liberals see as the fundamental tension between capitalism and the environment.  However, I think that they are mistaken here.  The issue is actually all about property rights and thus what is needed is more capitalism, not less.

Yes, it is true that Dr. Suess saw this story as such a parable, buried within its text is the evidence for the opposite.  Consider this quote at the end (emphasis added in boldface and italics), which is what is supposed to be the true lesson:

"You're in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds. And Truffula Trees are what everyone needs.Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care. Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air. Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back."

The only way that someone can "protect it from axes that hack" is by property rights.  Unless you own something you have no right to tell everyone else that they cannot use it.

We note that at first the Lorax attempted to exert property rights (emphasis added in boldface and italics), "What's that THING you've made out of my Truffula tuft?"

The problem is that the Lorax makes two critical errors.  First, he failed to emphasize that the Truffula tuft was owned by the Lorax.  Instead, he concentrated on the Thnead that the Once-Ler made.  Second, the Lorax attempted to appeal to the Once-Ler's altruism by showcasing the damage caused by Thnead production.  But why should the Once-Ler care about this?  Let's showcase what Adam Smith says about altruism versus self-interest in The Wealth of Nations:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

The Lorax has this reversed.  He attempts repeatedly to address the Once-Ler's humanity, not his self-love.  So, naturally, the Once-Ler would not listen.

What The Lorax should have done was sue the Once-Ler for theft or, in the absence of responsible government, he should have shot the Once-Ler (never brings a knife/ax to a gun fight!).  However, he apparently did not have a property deed nor a gun (believe me, however, launching a lawsuit is far more preferable to taking matters in your own hands). 

Of course, the Lorax does make several property claims.  He talks about "my trees", "my poor Bar-ba-loots", and "my poor Swammie Swams." But he makes no attempt to enforce those claims besides blistering talk. Yet without enforcement of property rights, the rights mean virtually nothing.

Indeed, by not enforcing his property rights, he allowed the Once-Ler to argue as follows:

"All you do is yap-yap and say, Bad! Bad! Bad! Bad! Well, I have my rights, sir, and I'm telling you I intend to go on doing just what I do!"

You see, folks, it is important to have property rights but it is equally important to enforce those property rights-- and that is the true lesson we should take from The Lorax, not the feel-good environmentalism about what we should do.  After all, even the environmental movement requires that force be applied against those who would seek to cause harm to the environment but how do we know how to balance the needs of the environment and the needs of the economy?  You can argue until you are blue in the face that the environment should take precedence but you would end up only being blue in the face.  What matters is whether you have the authority to force others to respect your decision and that can only come from one of two sources: authoritarian command and control (i.e., Communism) or freedom with property rights (i.e., Capitalism).  I'll take Capitalism every time.

Of course, those on the Left will argue that it is "unfair" that those with so much will be able to run roughshod over those with so little but they are mistaken in their critique.  For those with so much always run roughshod over those with so little whether under Communism or Capitalism.  The difference is that if you can acquire wealth under capitalism, the capitalists will freely respect and uphold your right to do with your property as you wish.  However, no one will respect your rights under communism -- you must uphold them by force.