(Click here to continue on the main path)

OK, look. Even if it were possible to justify exclusive, individual libertarian property rights in the way Dee describes -- basically through labor and first occupancy -- what difference would it make? Nothing like what she describes ever happened.

As far as we can tell from looking at the history of the real world, people originally lived in small groups of hunters and gatherers. At some point, some of these groups began to create temporary, seasonal settlements. Later on some of these became permanent settlements with agriculture. The group did this as a group and devised some way to work the land and distribute the product. Because these groups were very small, the decisions were probably made through some collective process led by the elders of the group.

Eventually, in some places, some form of stronger individual ownership developed. We have no idea how that happened, but very possibly it involved a good deal of violence and coercion. Why pretend that anything else happened?

We know that once we enter historical times, the last few thousand years, there is extensive violence and fraud involved in the acquisition and transfer of natural resources. Just think for a moment about what happened after Europeans conquered the Americas.

The bottom line is that Nozick's entitlement theory depends on an unbroken chain of legitimate transactions that begin with a legitimate initial acquisition. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. And Nozick admits that it didn't happen. There is, then, no way to justify the existing distribution of property based on Nozick's entitlement theory.

A good libertarian might admit that and perhaps also admit that we should carry out some sort of redistribution as a form of reparations for what actually happened. After that, our libertarian might argue, we should establish a system of strong Nozickian property rights.

But why should we do that? Nozick doesn't tell us. Is it because such a system would serve the common good better than any other system? That would require extensive argument that neither Dee nor Robert Nozick provides.

The fact is that once we admit that legitimate initial acquisition and transfer did not happen, we are left having to decide for ourselves what system of property we want to establish. And there is no particular reason to believe that it should be a libertarian one.