Are there other theories of property, even impractical, than Locke’s labor theory(includes first user justification), and universal ownership?
I’ve been thinking of an other way to justify property ownership, and I can’t think of any other? The only thing that jumps out at me would be conquest, but that seems to be using your labor to transfer ownership, and would fall in Locke’s theory of labor. Conquest is a legitimate form of ownership, right? Not legitimate in transfer, but in justification of ownership.
And if there are any others, can they be applied in a liberal society?
Mutualist property theory holds that ownership is based on continuous use and occupancy of the property. This is why mutualists are oppossed to absentee landlordism. Also, “use and occupancy” is meant to be defined by a common law-like precedent or by consensus. One can argue that it only really differs from Lockean theory in that it requirements for what constitutes abandoing property are more restrictive, as both theories see homesteading or free exchange as the only 2 ways to justly acquire property.
Georgist property theory doesn’t differ much from Lockean theory, except in the area of land, which is held to be the common patrimony of the human race. It gets a bit complicated, and I don’t really know that much about it, so I think that I’ll just show you the Wikipedia article.
On a side note, I’ve often wondered if something similar to a Nietzschean will-to-power could justify property. Perhaps Geoffrey or someone else interested in Nietzsche could interject here? [:P]