(Return to main path )

And there are more problems with the sort of theory that insists that people can acquire very strong property rights over natural resources by performing certain acts like working on a piece of land or occupying it.

Think for a moment. Even if we could agree on such a principle, you can't possibly believe that very many people have been governed by it. Human history is an epic of coercion, theft, and bloodshed. Groups of people have taken land and other resources from each other since time began. In our own country European settlers killed or pushed aside the Indian tribes for the sake of land or gold or some other valuable resource. My point is that the present distribution of things has nothing to do with such any such pretty principle as libertarians may imagine.

Beyond that, we also have to consider the second part of a theory like Nozick's -- his principle of justice in transfer. Waldron points out that those who support a theory like Nozick's would have to show that not only does the original owner of a resource acquire very strong property rights over it by performing some act (or acts), but he is somehow able to pass on the same strong rights to someone else.