It seems to me that there are lots of problems here.
Your argument for property rights says nothing about the common good. In fact, it doesn't seem to consider consequences at all. It's as if people don't live in
society. They're on their own.
It's as if what they do doesn't affect anyone else. It reminds me of
your references to people sitting on islands or wandering around in the state of
nature (as if there were such a thing).
Furthermore, I know that the property rights you hope to establish are absolute or nearly absolute. You reject the notion of balancing their value against other moral values. But do either of your arguments establish such strong property rights? I don't see how.
|