(Return to main path )

I agree that in the state of nature working on the land or working with other natural resources and producing something of value ought to give the person who does it some sort of claim to use and control the product.

Lawrence Becker discusses what he calls the "labor" argument at some length. He finds one version of it to be a sound argument. It's an argument that he attributes to J.S.Mill. It goes like this:

[W]hen the labor is (1) beyond what is required, morally, that one do for others; (2) produces something which would not have existed except for it; and (3) its product is something which others lose nothing by being excluded from; then (4) it is not wrong for producers to exclude others from the possession , use, etc. of the fruits of their labors. (Becker, p. 41, brackets added)

Becker agrees with this argument, but he also adds that the "no loss" requirement imposes substantial limitations on it. The big question is "what are those limitations?" While this argument may capture what seems intuitive about Dee's argument, it won't justify the full blown modern libertarian property rights she wants.