(Click here to continue on the main path)

That was a nice summary. Now I would like to make just a few comments on some of the basic differences that have emerged.

• The first difference is between those who believe in natural rights of property and those who believe that all property rights are created by the state. We might call them conventional rights.
  
  Dee believes in natural rights to property. She also believes that those rights continue to exist in political society. As a result, government is very limited. It must continue to respect those rights. For a utilitarian like Ann, there are no natural rights and therefore government cannot be required to respect them. Instead, all property rights are conventional. They are the creature of government and should be designed to maximize human welfare.
  
  John agreed with Dee that people have a natural USE right to natural resources in the state of nature, but he rejected her arguments for stronger exclusive ownership rights even if the Lockean proviso is not fulfilled. If the proviso is not met, he would look to the state to define property rights. For John, the concept of "legitimate government" is crucial. If government is legitimate, then we should respect the property rights is creates.
  
  
• The second difference is between those who believe that the rights of property are universal and those who believe that they are contingent on current conditions. Dee's arguments have a universal quality about them. Since they are not consequentialist arguments, they have little connection with local conditions and apply everywhere. For some of John's arguments, and all of Ann's, the justification for property depends on empirical consequences, and those consequences depend on local conditions.
  
  
• The third difference is between those who think that property owners have minimal obligations to non-owners. Again, Dee sees property owners as having no special obligations to non-owners. As long as property was acquired properly and passed from owner to owner properly, the owners have a very broad range of control and there is no additional obligation to non-owners. John and Ayesha have consistently argued that owners have an obligation to the common good that is built into the basic justification of private property.
  
  
• A fourth difference is between those who rely on their theology to ground human rights and those who do not. Ayesha and Fred see the image of God in human beings. It is for that reason that people have value and rights.
  
  
• A final difference is between Vera and everyone else. Vera rejects moral 'foundations' of the traditional sort, including God, natural law, pure reason, and hypothetical contract. She emphasizes the role of human choice in the construction of moral systems. She reminds me of the existentialists of the 1960s.