(Click here to continue on the main path)

Let me make a point here.

I think there is an important difference between what Dee and John are saying. Both are willing to admit that there is a justification for some sort of property rights in the state of nature. But there is a major difference.

• Dee believes that people can acquire strong property rights by occupying land and perhaps performing other actions. The justification for these rights does not commit the owners to any moral obligations to others who do not have property (except, of course, to respect the non-property rights of everyone).
  
  
• John sees property rights in the state of nature as much more limited than Dee. Those who do not occupy land, for example, always retain a right to use the land or a right to compensation for their loss of access. Those who take ownership in natural resources owe something to the others to compensate for their loss of access to and use of those resources.

I want you to watch this distinction. It may turn out to be important for American politics and our views on the nature of government.