From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:04:28 GMT

In article <fGk=GR_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In <1993Jan16.053016.28885@Princeton.EDU>,  (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>|> In article <P8h=kPA@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> >In article <1j70loINNmnj@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>|> >|> [...]

>|> >|> The problem seems to be is that a number of libertarians have
>|> >|> seen several of us call property rights "artificial" and 
>|> >|> immediately assumed we'd called them "bad." [...]

>|> >Do you believe that control of your own body is a natural right or
>|> >an artifical right created by society?  If you believe that 
>|> >control over your own body is a natural right, how can property
>|> >be an artificial right?  Property is nothing more than the result
>|> >of applying your faculties (mental and/or physical) to resources.

>|> But they aren't your resources!

>Whose are they?  Are they someone elses or do they belong to nobody?

Maybe they belong to EVERYBODY, collectively?

>If they belong to nobody, then I feel that a persons use of the
>resource establishes a claim on the resource, and the product produced.  

Why do you feel this?  It seems pretty arbitrary.

>	   If they belong to someone else, you can certainly
>strike a deal with the owner to receive compensation for developing
>the resources.  Perhaps the owner will grant you ownership of
>some of his/her resources in exchange for your labor.  In either
>case the product of your labor (the actual end product in the first
>case, the 'wage' in the second) belongs to you and should be
>under your control.

>|> >If you can't control what you have produced, do you really control
>|> >your own body?  If you plant a garden so you can eat, is it the
>|> >'natural' state of things that anyone may take what you have
>|> >created?  I don't think so.  If you did not violate anyone elses
>|> >rights in order to create your garden, I believe that the things
>|> >produced by the garden belong to you and are yours to control.
>|> >I don't find anything artificial about fundamental property rights.

>|> Where did you get the resources?  This idea of Locke's that if you mix
>|> something of yours with something that isn't yours, you get all of it,
>|> seems to be a little far-fetched to me.

>I agree.  If you utilize your faculties and someone elses resources,
>without prior agreement, you shouldn't expect to control the end
>product.  You have committed a form of theft.

I didn't say someone else's resources, though.  I said "resources that
aren't yours."  Why haven't you also committed a form of theft in this case?

>|> If I go plant a garden in 'your' front yard while you're on vacation, 
>|> without your permission, do I get to keep either the garden or the
>|> produce?  Why not?  I applied my faculties to resources.

>See paragraph above for explanation.

What makes this any different than if I wander over to Nebraska, find a
piece of land that the government hasn't given to someone, and farm it?

Of course, we no longer are able to do that, because people haven't left
"enough and as good" for everyone else, as Locke put it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves