Long explains a popular theory on the formation of the state:
Often the theory was that a sort of huntermarauder group conquers an agricultural group. In Molinari’s version of it what happens is: first, they just go and kill people and grab their stuff. And then gradually they figure out: well, maybe we should wait and not kill them because we want them to grow more stuff next time we come back. So instead, we’ll just come and grab their stuff and not kill them, and then they’ll grow some more stuff, and next year we’ll be back. And then they think, well, if we take all their stuff, then they won’t have enough seed corn to grow it, or they won’t have any incentive to grow it – they’ll just run away or something – so we won’t take everything.
Hence, when you can expect return profits, it’s in your favor to not destroy everything.
Could this be used to explain why property rights are good for preserving species and forests?
Then, of course, there’s the question of why government doesn’t make other economically-good choices like not have regulation, but I think we might be able to base that on poor understanding of economics (while it’s relatively simple to figure out that if you steal everything you won’t have a return crop).
Is it your well? If yes, then so what? If not, then whose well is it? If someone owns it, then you have just violated their property rights in the well. If no one owns it, then no one has any right to speak up about it.
In fact when this devil’s advocate came up again a group got created just for this kind of discussion, but never actually got any activity. Definitely feel free to start a thread there. I’d be interested to see where it goes.