hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (11/23/85)
In an earlier posting I outlined the Propertarian argument as follows: A RIGHT to do something is the condition of not being subject to (morally or politically) legitimate coercion in consequence of having done it. OWNERSHIP is simply the right to use or trade the owned entity in any way that does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another. ...<comment on termination of ownership>... FREEDOM is the right to do anything one can physically do, as long as this does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another. Under this definition, freedom implies the right to use or trade any thing that was never owned by anyone else: since no one else has ever owned it, using it cannot possibly be an invasion of another individual's person or property in and of itself. But having the right to use it in any way that does not invade, or threaten to invade, the person or property of another, means OWNING it. Thus, the above definitions of freedom and of ownership imply that freedom subsumes the right to establish ownership over any previously unowned object. ...<comments on creation of wealth and value>... To which carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) replied as follows: > Let me clarify what I am asking with an example. Migrating down from > the Bering Straits, Running Dog comes across a tract of virgin land, > previously unused by humans. He clears and tills 100 acres and grows > corn. Running Dog has read some "libertarian" writings and now, to > the consternation of the tribal council, declares that he and he > alone possesses the moral rights of ownership to the 100 acres; that > is, he claims to possess the *moral* right to use, profit from, sell, > or give away the land, and no one else has the right to do so without > his consent. The tribal elders don't buy it. Who is right and why? > If there is insufficient information to answer the question, what > further information is required? The case is important because all > natural resources that people need to survive were at one time or > still are in the same position as the 100 acres. > I don't think Adam's article contains an answer to this question, but > if it does I would appreciate someone stating it explicitly. OK, I left the definition of property implicit in the last article. So: A person's PROPERTY is the ensemble of things over which the person exercises ownership. Now once RD begins to use the previously unowned land, as is his right as a free person under the above definition of freedom, he is thereby exercising ownership over it. At this point it becomes his property, with implications stated in the definitions of freedom and ownership above. (For a consideration of the *moral* issues, see the discussion of wealth and value creation in my original article.) I still expect Carnes to disagree at the level of definitions. Adam Reed (npois!adam)