Difference between revisions of "What Is Property?"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
* Why would mixing of labor be restricted to the first mixer only? Why not allow others to later mix labor and take partial ownership? | * Why would mixing of labor be restricted to the first mixer only? Why not allow others to later mix labor and take partial ownership? | ||
* Why is it that a mixing of labor would grant absolute ownership rather than limited ownership? Locke did not say that. See: {{Link|John Locke Says Everything Belongs to Everyone}}. | * Why is it that a mixing of labor would grant absolute ownership rather than limited ownership? Locke did not say that. See: {{Link|John Locke Says Everything Belongs to Everyone}}. | ||
| + | * Mixing of labor can bring about a [[Tragedy Of The Commons]] when the commons is unregulated. For example, hunters can hunt their prey to extinction. | ||
* Mixing of labor is symbolic language; labor cannot be mixed. Substances are mixed. What molecules are labor made out of? See: {{Link| Initial Appropriation: A Dialogue}}. | * Mixing of labor is symbolic language; labor cannot be mixed. Substances are mixed. What molecules are labor made out of? See: {{Link| Initial Appropriation: A Dialogue}}. | ||
* Mixing of labor is just expenditure of effort, but it does nothing to create or change ownership. Only coercion can do that. | * Mixing of labor is just expenditure of effort, but it does nothing to create or change ownership. Only coercion can do that. | ||
