Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The origin of ownership--THE libertarian stand
Message-ID: <1216@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 20:06:07 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1216
Posted: Mon Apr 15 20:06:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 04:50:08 EST
References: <886@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 27

A very interesting discussion of property rights by Mr. Wego.  
However, the concept of "property" elucidated within differs
from that which is commonly associated with the term, in at
least one important respect.  Wego defines a property right
in terms of the obligations of other persons not to interfere
with the owner's use thereof, and shows that such property
rights can arise out of basic libertarian non-agression
principles.  However, as Mr. Wego notes, such property rights
suffer from dilution from the claims of "new" persons not
party to the original compacts or compensations.

Suppose someone appropriated your body while you were sleeping
(and thus not making use of it).  He attaches it to some machine
which makes profitable use of the autonomic reflexes or body
chemistry.  If you attempt to regain use of "your" body (in such
a way as to leave the machine) you are interfering with his use
of it and thus "agressing" him.

I disagree with the derivation of property rights from non-agression
principles (even though it is quite logically consistent);  the
example above may help to show why.  I assume a (more thoroughgoing)
definition of property as an axiom--the non-agression principle
can be derived from it in its turn.  (See early writings of Rothbard.)
This is the point over which I've occasionally labelled myself
"propertarian" rather than "libertarian".

--JoSH