esk@wucs.UUCP (Walter Wego) (04/24/85)
Jeff Sonntag already wrote a good reply to an article which criticized mine. Here's what I have to add. > I disagree with the derivation of property rights from non-agression > principles (even though it is quite logically consistent); [rather, > JoSH suggests doing it the other way around; thus he calls himself > "propertarian" (vs. "libertarian") to highlight this difference] > --JoSH I think JoSH's suggestion is a bad one just because I think non-aggression principles are more compelling as a starting point. Also because non- aggression principles imply quite specific conclusions about property rights; so if you deny those conclusions you would also have to deny the principles. Hopefully you wouldn't do that lightly. DKMcK writes: > Some time ago [...] I posted: > ]In a Free Economy, the following rules are observed: > ] Each person is initially sole owner of himself. > ] Unowned resources may be acquired by taking possession of them and > ] putting them to productive use. I disagree with the last sentence if it is supposed that using unowned resources always and automatically implies acquiring ownership. In my last article I explained that only abundant resources can be acquired simply by putting them into use. (This was the 3rd of 3 methods I described whereby an object can first become owned.) For scarce resources, the situation is more complicated; just using them does not give ownership. Suppose Alpha makes a statue out of (previously unowned and unused) gold. Does Beta have an obligation to let Alpha keep the statue, if gold is scarce and Beta wants to use it for something else? I think not. Beta has an obligation to avoid unnecessary interference with Alpha's activities and goals, but Beta need not accept interfence with *his* (Beta's) activities by Alpha. By taking the gold (which Beta would have found and been able to use the next day, had it not been for Alpha), Alpha is inflicting as much harm on Beta as Beta would be doing if he took the statue and melted it down. The situation is symmetric: each gets his preferred use only by making the other worse off. Therefore, neither one has an obligation to concede the object, they can legitimately compete over its use. --the TRUE libertarian, Walter Wego