Having security in one’s person and property is fundamental to human dignity and civilised society. The instruction “Keep your hands to yourself” and the commandment “Thou shalt not steal or trespass” encapsulate this wisdom.

Eminent eighteenth century jurist, William Blackstone, asserted the “absolute right inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in a free use, enjoyment and disposal of his acquisition, without any control or diminution, save only the laws of the land”. Extend that to Englishwomen and the proposition still stands.

Even Karl Marx invoked the principle of the right to property when he (wrongly) attacked capitalism for alienating workers from the product of their labour.

Investors need to be secure in their property rights. Homeowners don’t accept that anyone has the right to enter uninvited, raid their kitchen, or sleep in their bed. Laws against trespass, theft, fraud and extortion exist because they are necessary for civil society. Governments let their citizens down when they fail to honour these rights or don’t enforce them effectively.

Sometimes governments appear to agree that the law needs to protect investors too against fraud and theft. NZ governments have been endlessly passing intrusive ‘investor protection’ legislation since the 1987 share market crash. Despite its intentions, there is no evidence that investors are any more confident than before. Plus, much of this legislation raises investors’ costs and reduces their options.

Some argue that governments are sovereign, as distinct from voters. The only property rights voters enjoy are no more than privileges conferred by a parliament that can remove them at majoritarian will without consent or compensation.

This view may underlie recent opposition to the investor protection clauses in six international trade agreements signed over the past 17 years. Under these agreements, disgruntled international investors could take the NZ Government to a World Bank arbitration tribunal.

What is wrong with that? Parliament would remain the sovereign lawmaker and be fiscally confronted with the cost of any untoward expropriations of investors’ property. That discipline would help concentrate parliamentarians’ minds on whether the new use of the investor’s property really produces greater benefits than its current use. If it still produces net benefits, then so be it. If it doesn’t, why would the government do it?

A further objection is that foreign investors should not get greater protection than home investors. Of course they shouldn’t. Blackstone had that point ‘absolutely’ right.