(Click here to continue on the main path)

I also want to suggest an approach that, like utilitarianism, is consequentialist. In other words, it judges actions and institutions by their consequences. But my approach is based on a social ideal and doesn't assume the principle of utility. I'm making this sort of argument because it completely drops any reference to the state of nature, an initial situation, and a hypothetical social contract. I think this approach is more concrete and more understandable for many Americans.

It seems to me that one way (but not the only way) to justify a system of property rights is to start with a social ideal and then argue backward to the sort of property rights that are most conducive to that ideal. This approach is consequentialist, but it isn't quite the same as utilitarianism. Here's my argument:

• In an ideal society, every individual has the freedom and the resources to develop a conception of a good life.
• Every individual in that ideal society also has the freedom and resources to develop his or her natural capacities to the extent required for that person to pursue and have a decent chance of achieving his or her conception of a good life. (I'm assuming hard work on the part of the individual here and also that what they wish to do with their life is morally permissible.)
• A system of rights -- both non-interference and welfare rights -- is the most practical way to guarantee these basic freedoms and resources.
  
• Since certain basic resources are required to achieve this ideal, the distribution of property must guarantee that each person be provided with those resources. I'm thinking of a solid basic education, good housing, medical care, and a safe environment. These are the things everyone needs to pursue whatever they define as the good life.
• There is no reason why private property shouldn't be allowed within this ideal society, but there would be an obligation to the common good incumbent on everyone (including property owners) to provide the basic resources I mentioned. Those who are wealthy would have the greatest obligation.
• The most practical way to enforce this obligation to the common good would be through government action. This would probably involve a tax on income or wealth and would result in a redistribution of the same in the direction of those with less.
• This tax on those with high incomes or great wealth could not be correctly viewed as unjust or as theft because it would be implied by the basic justification of the system of property from which they profit.
  

I should add that while this sort of ideal is compatible with fairly strong private property rights, it is also compatible with some sort of collective control of some forms of property. The important point is that whatever system of property is established, its basic justification would include obligations to provide for the common good, and the common good includes protecting each individual's capacity to develop a conception of a good life and to work toward having that life. Those obligations are required and justified because they are the means to a specific social ideal.