(Click here to continue on the main path)

A lot of us would probably agree with most of what's on Dee's list. But I want to point out that the sticky wicket here is going to be property. Everyone agrees that the rules defining property rights are part of justice, but just what should the rules be?

There are a lot of questions about property that need to be answered if we are going to decide what constitutes justice. 

• Are there natural property rights -- the sort of thing that exist in what some philosophers call the "state of nature?"
• If there are natural rights to property, how do they work? How does anyone come to own anything? What sorts of qualifications are there on ownership?
• If people have natural property rights in the state of nature, do those same property rights continue to exist after government is established?
• If not, what sort of property rights should exist in a society with government?

If natural property rights continue to exist even under government, then everything we do, including everything the state does, is limited by those property rights. If there are no natural property rights, or if they cease to apply once government exists, or if they cease to exist when there are insufficient goods left to be acquired, then government is not subject to such restrictions. 

Modern libertarians take the view that there are natural property rights and they continue to exist under government. Most 20th-century liberals would probably take the view that property is a creation of government, or at least that its rules can be modified by government.

These are crucial questions for any philosophy of government and any view of justice.