-
Your objection was purely utilitarian (tragedy of the commons). I am looking for moral, deontological objections.
-
Then I claim all uninhabited parts of the earth. No that's not how it works. You need to justify the right to prevent others from using natural resource. Intention to use is not enough. You can state that you intend to use the entire Sahara desert as a place for travel once every few years. This doesn't give you the right to prevent others from
-
The system is just for people not for animals. Animals don't have rights.
-
Its not that you have the right to travel everywhere, but people shouldn't have the right to use force to stop you from doing this. It is the use of force that needs to be justified.
-
I'll give you an example: Suppose you are stranded on a small island with 10 more people. At the beginning you have the right to walk anywhere on the island, even though you don't exercise this right because you are too busy with survival. But then someone uses the vast majority of the island to plant a field. Your potential freedom of movement
-
It is a continuum, as with many things in libertarian theory (such as level of noise allowed)
-
When you rearrange raw materials to create a computer, you deny others the use of these materials. This is unjust, but the level of injustice is so small, that I don't think you should compensate anyone for that. However, when you plant a huge field on some attractive central land, then you make it impossible for other people to use the land for
-
Owning something implies that you have the right to use force against other people. The use of force shouldn't be taken lightly and it needs serious justification. If you created an object, I believe this justifies your use of force against other people in case they use the object without your permission. Simple occupation of land is not enough
-
When a person plants a field, that person uses land which he did not create to make space for the vegetables that he grows. Since land was not created by people, every person has the right to walk on any piece or land (land being unowned). In our case, the land is being occupied by the field, so people who want to travel to that piece of land, won't
-
The Indians assigned property rights in hunting grounds. Each tribe could hunt in a specific area but not in other areas. I'm not sure whether this is a just system. Why should a person (or a tribe) has the right to use force against other people in a given area? The tribe did not create wild animals, so why should they be able to ban others from