Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

(A note to the mods: Despite my references to economics, this is a discussion about "property theory," which can be included in economics, but is a topic primarily for philosophy. This topic is to address the philosophical justification of property, rather than whether or not it would work in any economy.)

This is a long thread, but I've tried to be as concise as I can. Hopefully, you're open-minded and we can stick to the subject. I'm not a stereotypical Socialist, in fact, those at RevolutionaryLeft.com seem to despise me and I haven't yet come across anyone sharing my views.

First, let me also clarify that this essay addresses, not a pragmatic economic policy, but examines the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of theories of property. Capitalism may be unjust while a mixed economy may be the only feasible system. What I believe regarding actual policy is a kind of political existentialism: governments may be inherently corrupt and radical socialism may be infeasible, but that's not to say we should automatically surrender to either capitalist or socialist tyranny. Even if politicians tend to use our taxes for selfish and wasteful purposes, we should still try to get them to use our taxes for positive purposes and commend them for when they do so. And even when there are industrialists exploiting the poor, if the only alternative is an inefficient economic policy which exploits the poor even further (i.e. the minimum wage), then the former is more desirable. I mostly advocate mainstream economics. My beliefs regarding Socialism and Capitalism are put best by George Orwell reviewing Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Mirror of the Past" by Konni Zilliacus:

Quote: Taken together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that Western civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other’s policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right.

The most common definition for the origin of property right is Locke's theory, which is what this essay primarily addresses, is that labor, when mixed with nature, creates a right to ownership. If it did not, ownership would be impossible and the taking of one's labor equates with slavery, which is axiomatically rejected on the grounds that slavery is inherently obviously and intuitively wrong.

Now, this is a very poor argument. To begin, one cannot equate taking the product of another's labor with slavery because slavery is defined, not simply by the ownership of the product of another's labor, but far more. Slavery additionally involves the ownership of the person. Now, some could argue that taxation implies ownership of the person, but this is not the case. Under slavery, a person cannot choose to not work, what they will work at, or when. So, even though taxation takes the product of another's labor, though freedom is restricted, self-ownership remains intact.

But most importantly, the greatest distinction is that the condition of slavery is established for the sole reason of exploitation, whereas taxation is sometimes established for benevolent purposes. Slavery is defined, most of all, by its brutality. When Charles Darwin saw Catholic slavers in the Caribbean, it led him to question his faith eventually to the point of Atheism, but one can scarcely see how any religious person could lose sleep at night over a moderately progressive tax. Jesus Christ certainly didn't think so.

And it is slavery's brutality and exploitation which make it intuitively objectionable to begin with. If the taking of the product of another's labor is done in a way which is not brutal or exploitative, then it cannot be equated with slavery. To give you an analogy: Assault is the circumstance where one person physically harms another. Yet a parent spanking their child involves physical harm. Torture involves causing physical or psychological harm to another person. But tickling, itself, is annoying and, in extreme measures, psychologically harmful. Imagine being strapped to a chair and tickled for hours, against your will. But both assault and torture are defined, not just by their literal acts of creating physical or physical and\or psychological harm, but by their brutality and the specific contexts in which the acts are performed. Hence, even in terms of taxation, situational ethics apply.

Furthermore, even if one equates slavery and taxation, one must argue that taxation is slavery to a lesser degree. It's perfectly reasonable to equate taxation with slavery if the tax-rate is 100%, but what about 10%? The belief requires the bizarre notion of "fractions" of slavery. But the concept of slavery is not divisible. How could a person "divide," slavery and its morality? Not to mention that if the taxation is put forth for the good of the individual themselves or if they had no ownership over what's being taxed to begin with, then it is far from slavery.

So, "labor creates property," is an axiom, not a fully established argument.

Now, for some, "labor creates property," as an axiom is sufficient warrant. They may say, "How else could I survive without property? And what other rational way is there to define property?" or jokingly demand everything you own. But they fail to recognize that survival and prosperity comes, not from the implicit ownership of objects, but the continuing use of those objects. Ownership has just been seen as the traditional means of guaranteeing continual use. Ownership has only been justified as supporting freedom and individual prosperity because it allows for continuing use, not because perpetual control, particularly through inheritance, is somehow inherently necessary for life and liberty.

Therefore, it is in everyone's rational self-interest to have the right to use whatever objects they need, not necessarily with implicit ownership. One can call this "collective ownership," but it's sort of deceiving because ownership implies a relationship between people. John "owning" a piece of land means that nobody else but him can use it. If there is no justification for individual property, then anyone may use what they wish in a manner in which is fair to all, according to ethics which encompass all things, including property theory. The term "collective ownership," also implies either state ownership or, more commonly, ownership by ownership by a democratic majority. Neither holds true. In the absence of individual property, anyone may use what they wish, but none holds greater authority than anyone else, none may exert authority over others and all must come to agreements that are equally and objectively fair.

In order for anyone to survive and prosper, they do not need a monopoly over any natural resources, but merely the right to use what they want and need. Locke argues that, in a State of Nature, no one would ever possess more than they use because waste and greed isn't in their interest, as money does not yet exist. In the absence of a store of value, nothing owned can be wasted. And exploitation does not occur, because natural resources are bountiful, so that taking from nature does not take away from others.

If we begin with a State of Nature, as Locke does in "Two Treatises of Government" and as Robert Nozick does in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", then it does not matter whether future people are exploited because the initial agreements were fair. But the "State of Nature," never actually existed in the way described, and even if it's useful in philosophical rhetoric, that alone does not justify it as an assumption.

The creation of money, too, allows for people to amass wealth to the point of waste and any definition of property must be relevant to today, the actual state of events, not some philosopher's dream. Even if, in the mythical State of Nature, the agreement was fair and no one was exploited, property is unjust if people today have possessions not based upon labor while others who do labor are exploited because they have little to nothing in order to bargain with.

And today, such as in Africa, the Earth is not so bountiful. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but it is a sum game. The "sum," is variable, but always fixed at any given point. There is not a finite amount of resources, because new resources can be generated. But there is, for instance, a finite amount of land, food, and gold. The control of these resources does take away from others, as the capability to gain property at all is dependent upon previous ownership of something to barter with. The only ones who "generate resources," in modern economies are the wealthy, whereas everyone else depends upon involuntary labor ("wage-slavery") to those who do have abundant amounts of capital.

Furthermore, even if we assume that labor is that which creates property, one leads to the logical conclusion that natural resources cannot be owned, as Henry George pointed out. Because the natural resources, themselves, were never labored for, but simply "gifts of nature," or, for the religious, gifts from God. Even Locke himself acknowledged this in the very beginning of his essay on property, in Book II, Chapter V of Two Treatises:

Quote: Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.

And this was expressed in his statement regarding well-water:

Quote: Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.

Now, if natural resources themselves cannot be owned, manufactured goods cannot be owned either.

Murry Rothbard made this same argument and I agree with him that Georgism is contradictory. But rather than seeing the contradiction as a flaw in property theory itself, Rothbard makes a circular argument: that it must imply Georgism is false and traditional property rights hold true. He begins by assuming that property right must exist and therefore the Georgist contradiction implies property rights exist, rather than recognizing that a clear gap between "ownership justified by labor" and "manufactured goods," implies that property right is unjustifiable.

Here is his exact argument from "Man, Economy, and State":

Quote: Some critics, especially the Henry Georgists, assert that, while a man or his assigns may be entitled to the produce of his own labor or anything exchanged for it, he is not entitled to an original, nature-given factor, a “gift of nature.” For one man to ap­propriate this gift is alleged to be an invasion of a common her­itage that all men deserve to use equally. This is a self-contradictory position, however. A man cannot produce anything without the cooperation of original nature-given factors, if only as standing room. In order to produce and possess any capital good or consumers’ good, therefore, he must appropriate and use an original nature-given factor. He cannot form products purely out of his labor alone; he must mix his labor with original nature-given factors. Therefore, if property in land or other nature-given factors is to be denied man, he cannot obtain property in the fruits of his labor.

A similar argument, though non-fallacious, could be made regarding positive liberty: In order for liberty to exist, one must have the means to express it. Therefore, base subsistence for all, too, is a prerequisite for liberty, just as ownership of natural resources is a prerequisite for ownership of property.

Freedom is, as George McCallum has pointed out, a triadic relationship: X is an agent, Y is an obstacle, and Z is an action or state, where X is free to go from Y to do or become Z. Libertarians focus solely upon the absence of public obstacles, while ignoring private obstacles and the existing state of each agent. To reiterate a previously relevant point: A person without property cannot own property. Abandoned children, orphans, widows, and the disabled all cannot provide for themselves through labor, because of the absence of property. And so, unsurprisingly, even before FDR's New Deal, before the rise of Keynesianism, Socialism, and modern Liberalism, these groups of people were provided for by the government.

In addition, labor mixed with property creates an ambiguous "radius of ownership," which cannot be clarified. Let's say, for instance, that a person builds a house. Do they own simply the land the house was built on? Historically, it has implied that the person owns the land the house is built on and a fair amount of land surrounding it. Also, because of the only recent invention of flight, the radius of ownership has only applied across the surface of the Earth and downward, which is rather strange.

Now, let's say that this same person decides to take gold from a local gold mine. Do they own the single piece of gold they grabbed or do they own the entire mine? What about the land between the mine and their house? Again, historically, it has implied that the person owns their house, the land surrounding it, the entire mine, and the land between the mine and their home.

The reason for this is rather clear and also an additional problem for property: externalities. Ecosystems, that is, the composition of natural resources, are not bubbles where you can say, "This piece of land can be used for such and such," as John Locke simply described a person gaining ownership of an apple tree by plucking a single apple. But on the contrary, the apple tree exists because of nearby apple trees which have established a population of them. The forest exists because of underground waterways which can extend for miles. The underground waterways exist because of rain which is carried from nearby rivers, lakes, streams, and even the ocean. And the apple tree also exists because of complex mutually-dependent, symbiotic relationships, a web of life which blankets the entire Earth. And so, ownership of just a single piece of nature implies authority over the whole of nature, to some degree. Thus, if you dump toxic waste or oil on your own "property," you aren't merely affecting your own property, but all of the property surrounding it. The same also applies if you pump toxic gases into the air, over-hunt the animal population, overfish sources of water, or otherwise tamper with the environment.

And so, the "no harm principle," in conjunction with property ownership is insufficient and the Libertarian concept of negative liberty involving "zones of freedom," is incoherent. Where, exactly, does one draw the borders of these "zones of freedom"? Theoretically, the first human on Earth to labor could have asserted ownership over the entire universe.

Locke's assertion that objects of nature are inherently "useless," in the absence of nature is also dead wrong, as natural objects have value in and of themselves, and such was demonstrated during the Gold Rush. They do have an equal value to every human being, but it is merely that each person is not yet capable of using said resources. And so such labor involves, not being the first person to find the apples on the tree to be worth eating, but the first person to get there.

And finally, even if we make the broad assumption the traditional Lockean property rights are justified, they are impossible to implement without benefitting thieves. As a simple concept, theft is accepted to always be unjustified. Even if I steal your car, if I sell it and give the profit to my descendants, if that theft is discovered, then my descendants must pay reparations. There is no "expiration date," for when stolen property becomes legitimate. Not even at the end of a person's life does stolen property become rightful inheritance.

Some may expect me to argue property is theft solely based upon the anecdotal cases of the Native Americans, European and Arab slave trade, and the Aboriginals. I do not and reject racially-based reparations for various reasons.

But rather, upholding property is upholding theft for the other obscure cases of theft throughout the world. In mankind's early history, no, for virtually all of mankind's history leading up to the past 150 years (arguably, if even that), mankind has inherently been a thief. Government itself steals, not because the institution of government is inherently evil, but because it is a powerful institution of authority run by men. As Lord Acton remarked, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is not the institution, but human nature combined with power which has created such tyranny.

And aside from modern governments stealing from various groups, ancient tribes warred with one another, with no justification other than theft. The greatest amount of theft happened on a small scale; one man taking another man's wallet on the street. From the standpoint of our true State of Nature, it is conceivable that even the first human beings on Earth to divide themselves into separate clans very quickly stole from one another.

Locke's argument is that slavery is only justified for those who break natural law. So, of course, aggressors in an unjust war have no right to take from others. And thus, in a very roundabout way, he argues that slavery and theft of property is essentially unjustifiable, even in war in a State of Nature.

But there have been so many cases of theft and unjustified war, historically. This is certain, but the details are unknown. What is known is that, because the theft has been so abundant over such a long period of time, virtually all property right today relies upon theft in one manner or another. Just think: one man, thousands of years ago, stealing merely a loaf of bread from another man would impact trillions of dollars of assets, impacting billions of people today. And yet, in the absence of a time-machine, what we do today is uphold property right while knowing that, in some way, we are benefitting thieves and exploiting those whose forefathers had their property stolen.

Even assuming laissez-faire capitalism ensures high social mobility, that everyone can reach their whatever financial state they wish through their own labor, it is wrong to say that this theft should be justifiable solely because of our ignorance of it, its abundance, and its old age. Those whose property were stolen shouldn't have to work from the bottom up, because even if they can make it, they shouldn't have to and their rightful inheritance should be returned. In arguing that taxation, in any form, is theft, one must therefore support the greatest source of theft there is: historical theft. The same precautionary principle which implies "innocent until proven guilty," equally implies "non-ownership until proven justifiably owned."

And so, I conclude that property is unjustified, that while "use," is fully justified, it is the perpetual monopoly and eternal control that is entirely mythical. I do not argue that the government has any right to determine who can use what or that the abolishment of existing definitions of property would be economically feasible, but solely that they are unjustifiable on purely ethical and philosophical grounds.

In this manner, I advocate a "gift-economy," as the only ethically justifiable system, where anyone can use what they want. Whatever they use is theirs. This guarantees more freedom than in Authoritarian Socialism, where a group of elite politicians exercise limitless over all objects of value, but also more freedom than in Capitalism, whereby another group of elites exercise unchecked authority over all objects of value, solely on the basis of inheritance, investment, and incoherent philosophical principles.

[MplsBison]

Fair enough.


Let's suppse, then, that you're walking by my house one day and decide that you need to go to some place.

You spot my car in my drive way and decide that you need to use it to go where you want to go.

However, upon pulling the door handle, you find to your amazement that the door is locked.

Looking around stupified for a couple of moments, you decide that you'll just break in.


That's when I come out of my house with a shot gun.


At this point, no matter how "correct" your property philosophy is, my philosophy is that the car is mine and that I'll shoot you if you try to take it from me.



I guess my point is this: how useful is it to have a philosophy like this when no one else believes in it?

Even assuming that your philosophy is the correct one, if everyone else still believes in the "false" pro property philosophy, it doesn't really matter.

[RueTheDay]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Fair enough.


Let's suppse, then, that you're walking by my house one day and decide that you need to go to some place.

You spot my car in my drive way and decide that you need to use it to go where you want to go.

However, upon pulling the door handle, you find to your amazement that the door is locked.

Looking around stupified for a couple of moments, you decide that you'll just break in.


That's when I come out of my house with a shot gun.


At this point, no matter how "correct" your property philosophy is, my philosophy is that the car is mine and that I'll shoot you if you try to take it from me.

What if he too has a gun and manages to shoot you dead first?

You seem to be arguing that might makes right, when it clearly does not.

Quote:
I guess my point is this: how useful is it to have a philosophy like this when no one else believes in it?

Even assuming that your philosophy is the correct one, if everyone else still believes in the "false" pro property philosophy, it doesn't really matter.

What if you lived on a street with three other people and those three people one day decided that your car should be theirs?

Just as might does not make right, neither does popular opinion.

[LostSoul3412]

If no one can own the land, then how can anyone have the right to build/own anything upon it?

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:

What if he too has a gun and manages to shoot you dead first?


Well, my point was that in our society I would be justified in shooting him. He would not be justified in shooting me.

Hence, what use it is to have this philosophy?

Quote:

Just as might does not make right, neither does popular opinion.

How do you define "right"?

Do you mean justified?


Neither might nor popular opinion justifies anything.


But then again, nothing is ever justifiable in general. It's only justifiable to individual people based on their personal choices.

[Nathyn]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Fair enough.


Let's suppse, then, that you're walking by my house one day and decide that you need to go to some place.

You spot my car in my drive way and decide that you need to use it to go where you want to go.

However, upon pulling the door handle, you find to your amazement that the door is locked.

Looking around stupified for a couple of moments, you decide that you'll just break in.


That's when I come out of my house with a shot gun.


At this point, no matter how "correct" your property philosophy is, my philosophy is that the car is mine and that I'll shoot you if you try to take it from me.



I guess my point is this: how useful is it to have a philosophy like this when no one else believes in it?

Even assuming that your philosophy is the correct one, if everyone else still believes in the "false" pro property philosophy, it doesn't really matter.
We should come to some kind fair, rational agreement. Obviously, it would be wrong of me to just grab your car or break into your house, just as it would be wrong for a sibling to take their other sibling's car or to break into their sibling's room. I would have to ask first and, from there, we should work out a fair agreement.

Granted, I'm not saying that this is the most pragmatic economic policy, only that it's the only ethically justifiable one, from a philosophical standpoint.

The only real argument for "property," is a consequentialist argument -- that without established property right, society would be dominated by chaos. In reality, you're right. Under the current economic conditions, someone would just steal your car, break into your house, and take everything you own.

But that doesn't imply Capitalism is ethical, only that it is at least temporarily necessary under existing conditions.

Ruetheday pointed out how you seem to support "might makes right."

[Nathyn]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:

What if he too has a gun and manages to shoot you dead first?


Well, my point was that in our society I would be justified in shooting him. He would not be justified in shooting me.

Hence, what use it is to have this philosophy?

Quote:

Just as might does not make right, neither does popular opinion.

How do you define "right"?

Do you mean justified?


Neither might nor popular opinion justifies anything.


But then again, nothing is ever justifiable in general. It's only justifiable to individual people based on their personal choices.
And so, "right," is defined as that which maximizes the fulfillment of each individual's preferences without valuing any individual's or group's preferences as being greater or lesser than another.

No individual or group can define what's "best" for anyone else. However, when two conflicting interests come into contact, they must reach agreements which are fair: in other words, a compromise between both party's interests, based upon an equal fulfillment of interests, rather than force. Simply because you have a gun does not mean that your preferences are more important than mine. And on a larger scale, just because you're wealthy enough to fund a large army again doesn't mean your preferences are more important than mine.

"Free trade," is not a perfect equilibrium between two interests because the party with greater wealth holds more weight than the party with lesser wealth, so the wealthier person doesn't need to compromise so much.

Now, in the mythical state of nature, it doesn't matter: a perfect equilibrium between interests is reached, as everyone is assumed to be of equal authority, and so the first trades made are inherently just, and thus any trade which follows that, even with an unequal distribution of freedom, is still just.

Since the state of nature never actually existed and since all property right is founded on historical theft, to uphold free trade is to uphold the rights of thieves to defend trillions of dollars worth of stolen goods.

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: If no one can own the land, then how can anyone have the right to build/own anything upon it?
You can't. Thus, no one has any implicit "right" to build anything or own what they build.

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: You can't. Thus, no one has any implicit "right" to build anything or own what they build.

Do I have the right to own anything?

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: If no one can own the land, then how can anyone have the right to build/own anything upon it?

You don't need to "own" something in order to "use" it.

[LostSoul3412]

RueTheDay wrote: You don't need to "own" something in order to "use" it.

If I don't "own" it, what prevents others from "using" it?

[RueTheDay]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:

What if he too has a gun and manages to shoot you dead first?


Well, my point was that in our society I would be justified in shooting him. He would not be justified in shooting me.

Hence, what use it is to have this philosophy?

Quote:

Just as might does not make right, neither does popular opinion.

How do you define "right"?

Do you mean justified?


Neither might nor popular opinion justifies anything.


But then again, nothing is ever justifiable in general. It's only justifiable to individual people based on their personal choices.

You seem to be using justified as synonymous with legal. Were slave owners justified in owning slaves when it was legal?

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: You don't need to "own" something in order to "use" it.

If I don't "own" it, what prevents others from "using" it?

It depends on the circumstances. A contractual arrangement, for one.

[LostSoul3412]

RueTheDay wrote: It depends on the circumstances. A contractual arrangement, for one.

Must I form an agreement with every other individual in an effort to convince them not to use something?

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: It depends on the circumstances. A contractual arrangement, for one.

Must I form an agreement with every other individual in an effort to convince them not to use something?

That depends on the object in question. What gave you the EXCLUSIVE right to use the object in the first place?

[LostSoul3412]

RueTheDay wrote: That depends on the object in question. What gave you the EXCLUSIVE right to use the object in the first place?

I bought it.

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: You don't need to "own" something in order to "use" it.

If I don't "own" it, what prevents others from "using" it?
But the question wasn't about the pragmatism about the policy, but only its ethical philosophical justification. Whether or not your right to use it can be established without an implied "ownership," is a question for economics.

And even if you did need implied "ownership," in order to establish perpetual use (the consequentialist argument noted above), that only implies that the ownership is justified only to the extent that it allows for perpetual use, not that the ownership itself becomes justifiable, on its own merits.

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: That depends on the object in question. What gave you the EXCLUSIVE right to use the object in the first place?

I bought it.
And what gave the salesman the exclusive right to charge you for it?

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: But the question wasn't about the pragmatism about the policy, but only its ethical philosophical justification. Whether or not your right to use it can be established without an implied "ownership," is a question for economics.

I don't think you can have an economic philosophy without addressing the economic, and pragmatic, implications of such ideals.

Nathyn wrote: And even if you did need implied "ownership," in order to establish perpetual use (the consequentialist argument noted above), that only implies that the ownership is justified only to the extent that it allows for perpetual use, not that the ownership itself becomes justifiable, on its own merits.

So?

Nathyn wrote: And what gave the salesman the exclusive right to charge you for it?

He made it.

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: But the question wasn't about the pragmatism about the policy, but only its ethical philosophical justification. Whether or not your right to use it can be established without an implied "ownership," is a question for economics.

I don't think you can have an economic philosophy without addressing the economic, and pragmatic, implications of such ideals.
Of course you can. True justice is not necessarily achievable. So, one must begin by examining ethical principles first and pragmatic implications, second. The ethics of property is a matter for philosophy. The implications of property is a matter for economics. And the two do not necessarily need to line up. Property can be ethically unjustifiable, but economically infeasible to abolish. And property can be ethically justifiable, but economically infeasible to uphold.

I agree that ethical principles must be sacrificed for our survival, security, and general well-being, but that's not to say that the ethical principles are decided by such. For instance -- you agree that liberty as an ideal and oppose restrictions of it as an unethical. Now, let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that it is fact that the government must conduct warrantless searches and seizures or else America's government will be destroyed and millions will die. Would you support warrantless searches or not? Obviously, as deplorable as warrantless searches are, our liberty doesn't matter much at all if we're dead. And so even if warrantless searches under wrong, under those conditions, they would be justifiable, for pragmatic reasons.

I'm sure you could think of some better examples where ethical idealism contradicts with pragmatic, assuming you're a moderate Libertarian.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: And even if you did need implied "ownership," in order to establish perpetual use (the consequentialist argument noted above), that only implies that the ownership is justified only to the extent that it allows for perpetual use, not that the ownership itself becomes justifiable, on its own merits.

So?
Re-read what you just quoted.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: And what gave the salesman the exclusive right to charge you for it?
He made it.
Out of what? Where did he get the tools to make something? Did he have ownership of them and if so, how?

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: I'm sure you could think of some better examples where ethical idealism contradicts with pragmatic, assuming you're a moderate Libertarian.

Be careful when you assume, because I am not a libertarian.

Nathyn wrote: Re-read what you just quoted.

I did, my question is why should merit determine ownership?

Nathyn wrote: Out of what? Where did he get the tools to make something? Did he have ownership of them and if so, how?

He bought the tools/materials.