The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property

[Snowflake]

@Stranger

http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf

Hoppe’s thesis? From college? I thought you’d go digging…

@Stranger

I am just extending this argument to more precise forms of property.

Still waiting on that re

[Autolykos]

@Stranger

My problem with your argument starts here. Can you show that the above is indeed the case?

That is pretty much the entire argument.

Really? Because you seem to have stated that the labor theory of property is correct as a premise for the rest of the OP. That is to say, you seemed to have meant, “The labor theory of property is correct; therefore…” Is that incorrect? If so, then what did you mean by it?

For you to take the rest of your OP as proof that the labor theory of property is correct appears (thus far) to be circular reasoning. As I just mentioned, given that you seem to take the correctness of it as a premise, you cannot logically use that premise to help prove its own correctness.

So which is it? Either you’re presupposing that the labor theory of property is correct, or you’re concluding that it’s correct. You can’t have it both ways at once.

@Stranger

The point is, any good that must be produced through some scarce means cannot have its private ownership up for debate, since under any other system than private ownership it cannot be produced into existence. People who reject private ownership of land, for example, create a situation where the land they are on could not exist. Same thing with intellectual property. If you deny that intellectual property can be owned (universally, as in the past, the present and the future), then the object you are questioning the ownership of can no longer exist.

If any good requires labor to be produced, it also requires private ownership to be produced.

I employ scarce means to breathe. Does that mean the carbon dioxide I “produce” (through exhalation) must be ownable?

[Stranger]

Really? Because you seem to have stated that the labor theory of property is correct as a premise for the rest of the OP.

No.

I employ scarce means to breathe. Does that mean the carbon dioxide I “produce” (through exhalation) must be ownable?

Obviously yes. If you had to obtain everyone’s agreement before producing carbon dioxide, you would die almost immediately.

That is however an objection to Hoppe’s justification of private property, not this thread’s argument in particular. If you want to challenge Hoppe, start a new thread.