|
I don't understand why you lump the idea that property is theft in with those other no-hoper arguments. I don't understand why property ownership is characterised as a negative right - "freedom from theft and confiscation", even though both those concepts have as a prerequisite the very concept of property. Perhaps this idea has been comprehensively demolished but I've never read anything particularly convincing. Surely property ownership is a violation of my negative rights. Claiming exclusive ownership of something is a direct restriction of my liberty to use that item - an announcement that you will use force against me if I try. It seems odd to predicate a political philosophy on the sanctity of negative rights and then enshrine an exception to the rule as an axiom of the system. Certainly strong property rights are the best (or the only) way to ensure an ordered and prosperous society, but if this negative right of mine can be violated for this purpose, then why not others - for example, my right to use recreational drugs? As regards Australia Inc, I think the whole "for profit" thing is a bit of a red herring/Strawman. The key point is that this country was claimed in the name of the Queen of England 200 odd years ago. Such democracy and property ownership as she has seen fit to grant the inhabitants since then is really only a benevolence if you really believe in the sanctity of private property, since we are all living on borrowed land. Perhaps you think that the power of the Crown is illegitimate because it was originally gained through the use of force. If you use this argument I will expect you to display more sympathy towards native title claims than I have seen you give in the past.
| 
