It's truly incredible how right libertarian justifications for property are broken all the way down.
Property necessarily started with aggression.
Even if it didn't necessarily, it usually did in practice.
Mixing your labor with land does not make it an extension of you.
Property necessarily started with aggression.
Even if it didn't necessarily, it usually did in practice.
Mixing your labor with land does not make it an extension of you.
Even if it did, this would cause ridiculous results, like the classic example of pouring tomato soup into the ocean.
Even if we ignore those ridiculous results, it's still not clear what part of the land you get to own by laboring on it. Just the dirt you touched?
Even if we ignore those ridiculous results, it's still not clear what part of the land you get to own by laboring on it. Just the dirt you touched?
Even if that was clear, it wouldn't be clear how to distribute property justly among many people who worked on the same thing.
Even if it was, in the modern day, most GDP can be attributed in some way to knowledge from dead people.
Even if it was, in the modern day, most GDP can be attributed in some way to knowledge from dead people.
And of course, obviously no consequentialist argument can be made for right-libertarianism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
