First person to make use of an economic resource owns it, and thereafter mutually agreed upon transfer agreements. The first thing called something like "homesteading principle" I think.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

By that definition large amounts of resources on this planet already have owners. It leaves out any transfer.

How should anyone born after these many established owners rest or travel anywhere, let alone cover their basic needs?

Correct. How is transfer left out? just stated that it is the secondary means of ownership acquiring.

I was just regurgitating something I read not long ago, which was backed up by long discussion, and I believe it's the premise of praxeology with respect to ownership, so thought I'd throw it out there (barge into your convo).

I overlooked the transfer part, sorry.

Yeah no worries. Just thought I might have read a good reply to your point recently so decided to share. It's pretty solid definition, and book I read would supply one with very solid defense of it from first principles. I don't know them well enough myself to elaborate much, but I found them convincing

Sorry to butt in. I'll see myself out now :)

Why else would we discuss things publicly here?

Participate as you want and see fit, I appreciated the input.

lol I dunno. Thanks 🙏🙏

That looks like it fits right in with previous thesis or theory I encountered, spontaneous order, self organized structures, emergence. The pattern, the behavior, seems self evident in natural structures.

It's a dense book, which I'd definitely have to read again before blabbering further, but the section addresses a lot of common objections very well and left me convinced it made sense.

"You become a conservative when you acknowledge that government is the problem, not the solution."

This guy conservatives, excuse the lazy lingo

After some cursory web search the title alone of "The Great Fiction" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe also appears to tackle the action and reaction, or evaluation issue pretty head on.

Sorry, I somehow completely overlooked the second part. Please disregard my previous reply.

I do this all the time. Makes me feel like a bad/selfish reader lol

Second attempt. This can make sense, however, I see it in line with my earlier statement that assuming ownership means taking something, materially or non materially. The differentiation between theft and use depends entirely on arbitrary evaluation of that action.

I see your point