_____
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.
_____
With David Hume's observation in mind, let's return to Locke's 'theory' of property. It's not a 'theory' at all - it's a moral treatise. According to Locke, we *ought* to own what we produce. But that doesn't mean that we *do*.
To see the consequences of this mistake, we need an actual scientific theory of property rights - a theory that explains why property exists, not why it 'ought' to exist. The most convincing theory of private property, in my opinion, comes from the work of Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler. To understand property, Nitzan and Bichler argue that we should turn Locke's idea on its head. Property isn't a 'natural right'. It's an act of *power*.
Property, Nitzan and Bichler observe, is an act of exclusion. If I own something, that means that I have the right to exclude others from using it. It s this exclusionary power that defines private property. Here are Nitzan and Bichler describing this act:
_____
The most important feature of private ownership is not that it enables those who own, but that it disables those who do not. Technically, anyone can get into someone else's car and drive away, or give an order to sell all of Warren Buffet's shares in Berkshire Hathaway. The sole purpose of private ownership is to prevent us from doing so. In this sense, private ownership is wholly and only an institution of exclusion, and institutional exclusion is a matter of organized power.
_____
When we think like Nitzan and Bichler, we get a very different view of income. Recall that most political economists see property in terms of the 'things' that are owned. They then argue that income stems from these 'things'. Nitzan and Bichler upend this logic. Property, they argue, is about the *act* of ownership - the institutional act of exclusion. Income stems from this exclusionary act. We earn income from the *fence* of property rights, not from what's inside the fence. In other words, if you can't restrict access to your property, you can't earn income from it."
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/06/18/can-the-world-get-along-without-natural-resources/
5b/30
