Arkolon wrote:Conscentia wrote:Well I don't agree with the proviso.
I don't understand why you are having difficulty with this: private property requires action (Acquisition and enforcement of exclusion). By the reasoning you present, that would align it with the positive liberties thus excluding it from the category of natural rights.
Common property is common to all. It does not have to acquired and no-one is excluded hence there is no exclusion to enforce. Hence no action is taken. By the reasoning presented by you, that would make it a natural right.
And why not?
The right to property is a natural right because it is, well, firstly legitimised by the proviso, and secondly fits Lindsay's definition of what rights are. The right to accumulate property cannot be taken away from you, the same way it cannot be given to you, because the right just is. It can be violated, however, but not granted. Could you give me an example to which common property you were referring to?
Common property cannot just be appropriated as private property just because there's an equivalent available to others.
"I'm taking this money from our treasury - don't worry, it's okay because an equivalent amount of money is left"
Don't move the goal posts. You said that natural rights correspond to negative liberties. Private property does not correspond with negative liberties. There is no natural right to accumulate property. Accumulation of property requires action, thus it corresponds with positive liberties.