(Click here to continue on the main path)

Fred has already mentioned the contractarian David Gauthier and his view on morals in general. Our topic now is property, and he has something to say on that subject. But it's complicated. I have been trying to figure out what he believes, and I think it goes something like this:

• The initial acquisition of "exclusive property" in natural resources (land, for example) must first satisfy Gauthier's proviso if it is to be justified. Satisfying the proviso does not insure equality of ownership, but it does insure that each person is left "as well off, indeed better off, than before." [Morals by Agreement, p. 217.]
  
  
• It is possible to imagine cases in which the initial acquisition of exclusive property is not justified. For example, someone might claim too large a portion of what land is available [Morals by Agreement, p. 215-216.]. But in many cases the requirements of the proviso will be met. After one party takes exclusive ownership of one portion of land, others will have the use of the remaining land, and there may also be the benefits of trade with those who become exclusive owners.
  
  
• Gauthier does not believe that those who acquire exclusive ownership of land take advantage of others "simply because they now lack the opportunity that one was the first to seize. The winner of the race does not take advantage of the other runners." [Morals by Agreement, p. 278.]

My own view is that Gauthier underestimates how often a few people will seize the bulk of the decent land (and other resources) that are available. There have been any number of countries in which two or three percent of the population owns the bulk of the arable land. In those cases, which I think are common, I don't think his proviso is met. There are, of course, other cases like colonial North America in which a very high percentage of the population owned a family farm. And perhaps the proviso is met in those cases. But I would say that that is not the typical case.