(Return to main path )

Just let me throw in something else here. I have already mentioned Jan Narveson and his book The Libertarian Idea. He discusses morals in general and property rights in particular.

Narveson divides his argument into three parts. In part I he discusses whether libertarianism (with its strong property rights) is rational or internally consistent. In part II he asks whether there are reasons to accept libertarianism. In the final part he discusses various real world applications and qualifications.

For Narveson, everyone 'owns' himself or herself and has a fundamental right to liberty. Each may do as he wishes as long as they do not violate the similar rights of others. In the state of nature, that freedom includes the right to acquire property in natural resources such as land.

Narveson insists that in the state of nature my acquisition is permissible because it does not violate anyone else's rights. Thus libertarianism is internally consistent in its view of initial acquisition. He writes:

People may, then, take what they please, so long as what they take, that is to say, what they do there, does not adversely affect the rights that people already have. That my acquisition of a given plot thereby disenables you from having that plot is true enough, but nothing to the point, since you had no right to that plot, any more than I did. I acquired the right by getting there first and doing things with it. I did not activate a claim I already had, for I had none. Acquisition limits opportunity, to be sure. But nobody had a duty to provide you with that opportunity, nor even to maintain it for you. You simply didn't have a right to it. You did have the right to do whatever would not interfere with the actions of others; but your planting in this plot would do so, alas, for I --you see-- am already here.

I think on this point Narveson takes a view much like that of Roger Pilon. I think we could summarize Narveson's view as follows:

• Each person has a general right to liberty i.e., people can do as they please as long as they do not violate the rights of others.
• People in the state of nature can take exclusive possession of resources such as land as long as this does not violate the rights of others.
• Person A taking possession of plot X does not violate anyone's rights because no one had a right to plot X before A acquired it.