(Click here to continue on the main path)

I want to add something else. Up until now, Dee has been able to define libertarianism for us, but her definition has left something out. There are two distinct kinds of libertarians: right-libertarians and left-libertarians. Dee is on the right, and so are Nozick and Pilon.

On the left is another tradition, not as well known, but with a long history of its own. One of its most prominent representatives today is Peter Vallentyne.

Like Dee, Vallentyne believes in self-ownership and uses it as a basis for strong individual rights. The fact that people 'own' themselves implies that they have extensive control over how they can be treated by others. But, unlike right-libertarians, Vallentyne doesn't move quickly from self-ownership to strong property rights in natural resources. Instead, ownership of natural resources is qualified by obligations to non-owners. Here's a bit of what he says:

Left-libertarian theories of justice hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one's person without one's permission. Unlike the more familiar right-libertarianism (which also endorses full self-ownership), it holds that natural resources -- resources which are not the results of anyone's choices and which are necessary for any form of activity -- may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. ["Left-Libertarianism: A Primer," p. 1]

You can see that there is actually some convergence here between what John has been saying, what Catholicism teaches about the common good, and what Vallentyne is saying. Strong property rights come with moral obligations.