When it comes to property rights, it is easy for me to follow the logic that when you CREATE something, like a sword or a painting or a piece of furniture, that it belongs to you*. I can also follow the logic that when you trade what someone has created at some agreed price, that it now belongs to you. However, I have a difficult time following the logic of land rights, or rights to anything that none of us created. Anyone have an opinion about this? I would love to be able to understand this better!
*you can be an individual or an organization
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think you've hit axiom territory here. Logic can extend "ownership of nature" to ownership of what you produce out of nature's inputs or what you trade for, etc. But, that first step -- granting ownership of nature -- requires an assumption, ultimately (in my opinion) about humanity's role in the universe. (That came across a little more dramatic than I originally envisioned.)
ReplyDeleteFor a completely different perspective that I find quite compelling and am working to synthesize with my "Randian", libertarian worldview, please consider this two-part series:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/07/wealth-of-nature.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/07/nature-wealth-and-money.html