(Click here to continue on the main path)

OK. Just hold on a minute.

You're referring to the so-called Lockean proviso when you talk about leaving "enough and as good" for others. Some libertarian philosophers like Robert Nozick have accepted that proviso. But Nozick also showed that it had very little bite. In his view, it implied only that those people for whom civilization was a net loss had some right to compensation. There are very few such people, I can assure you. Nozick argued that the advantages of a system of strong property rights were so great that almost no one would be worse off that they would have been in the state of nature. On this interpretation, the Lockean proviso is almost always fulfilled. Just think, for example, of the increased production of all basic goods (like food) made possible by strong property rights. The people who don't own land gain tremendously from that.

Other libertarian philosophers, like Roger Pilon at the Cato institute, have argued that the proviso is based on a mistake. Locke assumed that God gave the earth to all mankind in common. Pilon points out that if you want to make a purely secular argument, you can't invoke God as the original owner and giver of the earth. The earth is simply there for people to occupy and acquire. By performing various actions, people acquire property such as land and that's it. There may not be as much left over for others, but their rights have not been violated by those who have acquired the land. We must "bite the bullet" at this point, according to Pilon. And frankly, I agree with him. Everyone begins with the right to occupy land that does not belong to anyone else. But once occupation occurs, the situation has changed. Those without land must occupy land that is still unoccupied or perhaps occupy none at all.

You can make this situation sound terrible if you want, but you're exaggerating. Even after all the good land is owned, there will still be people who want to sell or trade land for other things. There will still be owners who want to hire laborers to work on the land. There will still be owners who go broke and sell their land on the cheap. My point is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as you say.