Had this argument before. There's a basic problem with advancing the idea that property can't be owned. That problem is this: if the property isn't 'mine', I'm not going to bother improving it. I don't know of anyone involved in business who would.

...and I don't care who the original owner was. I own it now for all intents and purposes, and I'll not be easily removed from it.

-RAnthony
R. Anthony Steele | 03.13.05 - 2:49 am | #

Anthony,

You have a good point. However, it is not a "basic," or foundational point. It is a utilitarian or consequential point.

From a utilitarian or consequential standpoint, it's "good" if I have $1,000 in my pocket and a supermodel on my arm, and it's "bad" -- or at least not as "good" -- if I don't. Whether I got that money by earning it and that supermodel by seducing her with my animal magnetism, or got the money by robbing a liquor store and the supermodel by kidnapping her is relevant.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Thomas L. Knapp | Homepage | 03.13.05 - 3:46 am | #

While how you earned it is relevant in the scheme of things, to call into question the core foundation of liberty, ownership of one's own property, because at some point in history it was taken from somebody else...

It's just a bit farfetched. Somebody has to own the property, somebody *has to be* responsible for it. Either the individuals who occupy the land own it, or the government does for all intents and purposes.

Personally I'd side with the individuals. As an architect, I've seen what gets done in the name of 'preservation' when the gov't get's involved.

-RAnthony
R. Anthony Steele | 03.17.05 - 10:15 pm | #