I’ve always regarded the above counter-argument to property rights to be a moot point, and below are the small “L” libertarian premises upon which my point of view is based. While the conclusions I draw from my premises might not be “intellectual enough” to satisfy everyone… I tend to think some of us way over-analyze many of our arguments anyway… so I’m done worrying now about whether my arguments are always “intellectual enough” anymore.

1) Man has the natural right to do whatever he wants with whatever he wants (regardless of whether or not his actions are just or wise) as long as his actions do not violate the rights or property of others in the process.

2) He who initially creates, improves, or effectively takes possession of something (tangible or intangible) is its initial rightful owner.

3) Once one’s ownership of something has been effectively established it is his property and no other possesses a rightful claim to it.

A man discovers land/resources and decides he wants to take possession of it. Assuming no other has established an effective prior claim to that land/resources, he is free to claim it as his own since doing so at that time does not infringe upon the rights or property of anyone else. I like to call this the “finders keepers” principle, and it’s a principle ingrained in basic human nature that even young children who’ve never read John Locke or Friedrich Hayek instinctively understand. Of course, if someone else has already established a prior claim to that land/resources then he is not free to take it as that would be stealing.

Okay, the next step in the equation is to figure out exactly how one “takes possession of” and “establishes an effective claim” to the currently unowned real estate he wishes to own. Again, we’re not talking about rocket science here… common sense gives us some answers. One simple way to establish ownership of previously unowned land/resources is to build a fence around it, buy a couple of doberman pinchers, and put up some “beware of dog” signs. Of course, there are other less militaristic ways to establish initial ownership of land/resources if one doesn’t like dogs. Other options include planting crops on it, grazing livestock on it, mining it, or perhaps building a condominium complex surrounded by a giant parking lot on it.

Regardless of which method one chooses to establish his effective claim to that property, common sense suggests that another who shows up and sees the parking lot, coal mine, fields of meticulously planted cornrows, or “beware of dog” signs cannot logically claim that that land/resources is any longer unowned… and at this point any attempt to take it from the one who built the coal mine or the condominiums would be stealing rather than employing the “finders keepers” principle.

In modern times, of course, most of the parts of the earth worth living in are already effectively settled or at least in the nominal possession of somebody, or a group of somebodies, or perhaps a government… so “homesteading” is no longer as common as it used to be. Today, if you want to acquire land/resources you just go buy it from whoever currently owns it that is willing to sell it to you.

The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is that land and natural resources are NOT the product of any individual’s labor or ingenuity or effort. They simply always existed, independent of man and his activities. Every attempt at trying to justify a natural right to private property will run into this difficulty. The homesteading argument is a dead end – how does being the first person to declare loudly that land you did not create is exclusively yours justifiably extinguish the rights of all others to use that land? The labor-mixing argument is another dead end – as the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick remarked, “…why isn’t mixing what I own with what I don’t own a way of losing what I own rather than a way of gaining what I don’t? If I own a can of tomato juice and spill it in the sea so its molecules mingle evenly throughout the sea, do I thereby come to own the sea, or have I foolishly dissipated my tomato juice?” Libertarians would do better by being pragmatic and focusing on the benefits of freedom and free markets rather than trying to simply skyhook property and contracts into place with nonsensical notions of natural rights.