(Return to main path)

This isn't about the Lockean proviso. But before you guys get off on that, I want to throw something in here.

Libertarians seems to think that everyone or nearly everyone gains from having property organized as they would organize it. That may be true. I'm not sure, but it may be. My point is that when a society is locked into a libertarian view of property rights everyone has lost something very important; namely, the right to organize property differently. Any alternative schemes -- socialistic, communitarian, communistic, whatever -- are off the table. In my view that is, by itself, the big loss. And I might add that someone might argue that those who do not do so well under a libertarian regime might be owed some sort of compensation for having the option to choose other alternatives taken away.

Let me add something about Dee's island argument. It may be that a group of individuals, living on different islands, would owe each other nothing from the products of their labor. Fine. But I don't understand what this is supposed to tell us. Human beings never lived in isolation from one another. They have always lived in groups (and, presumably, evolved out of primate animals that also lived in groups). What does all the talk about individuals on islands tell us about our situation? I don't get it. This is similar to asking Rawls why we should pay attention to whatever might be decided in the original position. We have to have an answer or its irrelevant.