(Click here to continue on the main path)

I just want to say that I think you are on the wrong track with all this stuff about the state of nature and the Lockean proviso. It's an old paradigm that has nothing to do with the way people think today.

There is no such thing as natural law in Locke's sense or any other sense. Property is a social construct. It's a system of rules that people make up as they go along. In my opinion, its a system that people with power impose on those without power. That's it. Love it or fight it. Don't start talking about the state of nature and natural law.

Myself, I believe that private property can have a useful function on a small scale. Small businesses are usually very competitive and they do not exercise any great economic or political power. Owning a home has a protective function for the family that lives in the home. Owning a car is a great convenience for many people. On the other hand, when private persons are allowed to own huge corporations that control the basic means of production, they accumulate vast economic and political power. In Dee's system of things, there is no effective opposition to that power, no counterbalance, no restraining power.

It seems to me that if you are going to have huge private corporations, you also need a government that can restrain them and require them to work within a moral framework provided by the community. Without that, corporations will simply run the show in their own interest.

But let me put forward another idea that has been completely lost in this conversation. There is another path to take in the state of nature (if we must talk about that philosophical fantasy). Rather than individual people acquiring property in natural resources, there is the possibility of collective control. Yes, that's right, I said "collective." The great American nightmare. But doesn't it make perfect sense? Especially if Locke's proviso isn't met?