Locke and Rothbard hold to the Labor Theory of Property, which takes the homesteading principle that you come to own something by mixing your labor with an unclaimed resource.
Kinsella holds to the First Occupier Theory of Property, which takes the homesteading principle that you come to own something by becoming the first occupier of an unclaimed resource. Why does he do this? Because he claims that you don't own your labor, because labor is allegedly unownable. By the way, this ignores the fact that an act of occupying is necessarily an act of labor. But why does he say you can't own your labor? Because if you accept the fact that you own your labor, you get intellectual property. Well, if you don't own your labor, who does?
“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original