or can we fall back on natural conscience and the labor theory of property to guide us?
does anyone know what exactly is the labor theory of property that is being referred to here?
John Locke's - mixing one's labor?
edit: sorry, if you read the article it says...
quote:
Let me introduce you to "the labor theory of property" which is very different from "the labor theory of value". If you are a hard-working American then you will feel right at home with the labor theory of property, because it supports you in the highest regard possible. This theory suggests that ownership of a product is derived when labor is mixed with material from the same owner to produce that product. That product then becomes the property of the person who owned the material and labored to create it using that material. If a man purchases wood and nails and then builds a house with his own two hands, that house belongs to him. No one else has a claim of ownership to his house. If a man purchases wood and nails and then hires someone else to build his house, the house is still his because the contractor who built his house was trading his labor for compensation and the man was the one who ended up paying the full expense of the labor. The labor inexorably flows from the man's pocket into the man's house, completing the cycle from absolute start to absolute end. The middle-man is simply an artisan attempting to trade his labor (property) for compensation (other property) and when his labor has been fully compensated for he does not hold title to what his labor has produced because the production started with the homeowner's property in all regards.