(Click here to continue on the main path)

Not so fast, Dee. I recognize that there need to be moral limits on what government can and cannot do with property. But I think the idea that the rules of property are made by legitimate government can accommodate that need for limits.

There are a number of theoretical (not political) limitations on what legitimate government can do:

(1) First of all, we are presumably working within a theory of justice. It might be utilitarian. It might be Kantian. It might be Nozick's theory or Rawls's theory -- but there is some theory with which we are working. That theory, whatever it is, will necessarily give us some notion of what is due to each individual. That's the nature of justice. But that notion of what is due will also place limits on what a legitimate government is allowed to do.

(2) Second, we probably are working within a theory of rights. Most modern theories of justice will include some notion of rights. Again, those rights will place limits on what government should and should not do. For example, if we were to accept Griffin's theory of rights, it would provide us with moral reasons for government to incorporate those rights into law. But it would also provide reasons for the government to avoid doing certain things. Since Griffin's theory protects personhood, it would prevent government from simply taking away people's property to the point at which personhood is threatened. On the other hand, it would require government to maintain a distribution of income or wealth that would guarantee the minimum required for personhood to continue. Within a broad range the government might be free to adjust the rules, but there would be limits.

(3) Third, we are presumably working from some theory of legitimate government. As in the case of whatever theory of rights we accept, our theory of legitimacy will place limits on what government should do. Whatever your theory of legitimacy, it rests on some sort of principle or principles. For example, it might be based on:

• a moral principle like the principle of utility
• a theory of rights like Kant's or Nozick's
• a hypothetical contract like that of Rawls or Narveson
• a view of God and God's relation to the world
  

Whatever the moral basis of legitimate government is, that basis will also provide limits on what a legitimate government can do.

For example, Rawls insists that his hypothetical contract would include certain background conditions that must be met by the rules of ownership and exchange. If those conditions are met, then private property could be very well protected.

My point is that just because the rules of property are made by legitimate government instead of being derived from natural moral law, it does not follow that there are no moral limits on what government can do with anyone's property. There are a variety of constraints that place limits on what government is justified in doing.