(Click here to continue on the main path)

I wonder a lot about these all these questions about property. Are there natural rights to property? What are their limitations? Do they continue to exist in political society, that is, in society with government? What is the role of government in defining or modifying property rights?

It seems to me that we might say that a person has a strong justified property right in the state of nature to what he or she has created using natural resources, assuming that the Lockean proviso has been met. Even here, however, such a right to use his or her property would be limited because of the consequences that affect others. How could anyone have a right to do whatever they wanted with anything, even if they made it?

When the proviso is not met, different rules would apply. A rule might be chosen that provides for more limited property rights based on the labor and creativity that a person has "mixed" with natural resources. But this right could not be nearly as strong as the one that would be justified when there are plenty of resources left over for other to apply their own labor to. And, again, there would still be justified limitations on this lesser property right because of the consequences of the owner's actions on others.

It's hard to imagine any institution other than government that would specifically define these limited property rights or the limitations that must be placed on them because of consequences.

I don't see how a completely deontological property right could be justified under any circumstances. But I also don't agree that property rights should be completely based on consequences for the general welfare or that of any other group. It seems to me that the most reasonable view of property involves deontological and consequentialist elements.