Search the Community

When people produce something, they mix their labor with resources. If we go back in time far enough, these resources were initially unowned. natural resource + labor ==> modified resource The modified resource has been produced by a laborer. If someone else takes control over it (steals it), then the laborer would have worked for nothing. We don't want that, because we want to be fair towards the laborer. On the other hand, the laborer has not created the resource. The unmodified resource would have been there also without him. Natural resources, even when still in their unmodified form and location, often have significant value to people. An unmodified natural resource, such as an unimproved plot of land, cannot be legally owned in an anarcho-capitalist society, but suppose it could, then it would have a considerable market value. For most things that are owned, the market value added by labor is much higher than the market value of the unmodified natural resource would be. For example, a car has a much higher market value than the unmodified resources from which it is built. In these cases, it is not difficult to accept that the laborer who has worked on an unowned resource, becomes the owner. Determining ownership is more challenging when one or more of the following conditions apply: 1.- the labor is mostly unmixed from the resource Example: the produced crop of a field is harvested and sold Example: someone improves a yet unowned tree, resulting in a higher quantity of fruits, with the quality staying roughly the same. Not all fruits, but only the extra fruits bear significantly the effects of his labor. 2.- the labor applied to the resource did not result in an improvement For example, after heavy production, the soil is getting depleted, even to the point where the market value has become less than that of an uncleared unmodified plot of land. 3.- the resource is abandoned temporarily Even if someone has not done enough with a resource to acquire ownership, the fact that he uses it, would give him sort of temporal ownership to the part of the resource that he uses (personal space). If the resource is abandoned, this does not apply. 4.- the value of the natural resource is very high This can happen because land is needed for essential food production, and the population increases. Suppose someone has modified a very valuable plot of land. Other people might want to access this resource too, not because of the modification done by the first laborer, but because of the value of the resource, regardless of the modification. This means they do not try to steal the fruits of the labor, but want to access the resource that the laborer has not created. They want to work on it with their own hands, just as the first laborer has done. Based on which right, from an ethical point of view, could the first laborer forbid others from using the same natural resource that he has used, when he has added only comparatively little to it? A property rights theory should be able to handle these situations accurately, in order to be valid and complete. None of the approaches I have read about so far from both left and right are satisfactory to me. My question is: Would your property rights theory be able to handle these situations in a fair and ethical way, and if so, how? Related threads: Land ownership, Is homesteading UPB? Geolibertarianism.