-2

I have heard the argument that is made (usually) for a plot of land. We deprived someone of it, therefore it's wrong under libertarian principles. But what about newly generated property, like intellectual property, or, say, property generated with the fair exchange and agreement with other individuals. For example, if everyone is happy to give me flour and butter (for an agreed price or in exchange for something) and I make cookies, what's wrong with me owning those cookies?

Or maybe no libertarian would object to this?

Improve this question
9
  • 2
    If you are using a definition not in line with the tag you should include that definition.
    – user9389
    Jul 25, 2017 at 7:40
  • 9
    When you think that Libertarianism means one doesn't have right to private property or the value they create, then you either grossly misunderstood something or have a very weird definition of Libertarianism (it sounds more like Communism to me). Note that there is not just one single definition of Libertarianism. Could you post a reference to the definition of Libertarianism on which your question is based?
    – Philipp ♦
    Jul 25, 2017 at 9:25
  • 1
    If you think a tag ought to be changed you can bring it up in meta (once you have 5 rep), but the existing questions use it in the American sense. If you clarify whose thinking you are interested in we might be able to answer.
    – user9389
    Jul 25, 2017 at 13:15
  • 1
    see this question about libertarian intellectual property
    – lazarusL
    Jul 25, 2017 at 14:46
  • 1
    Perhaps OP sees broad generalizations about liberalism and is confusing that with libertarianism?
    – PoloHoleSet
    Jul 25, 2017 at 15:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

No Libertarian would object because it takes labor, or effort to make a cookie, and your labor is your own.

A cookie is more than just raw material. So long as the materials were obtained fairly. If you obtain something fairly, you own it and can do with it what you will. When you add your effort and cookies are the result, you own the cookies and can do with them as you wish, no one else has any claim at all on your cookies. Your effort is your own. what your effort is worth is dependent upon what others would be willing to exchange for your cookies.

What you charge for your cookies is going to be the cost of materials plus what you feel is the cost of your effort to make the cookies. If the market decides that is fair, great. If not, you keep the cookies.

In general, a Libertarian is fine with pretty much anything so long as a fair exchange is decided upon between individuals, and that my exercise of rights does not impinge upon yours. Government, if any, need s to keep the heck out of everyone's way as much as possible.

Libertarians, for the most part, will acknowledge that a functioning Anarchy is impossible for anything but a small community. Government needs to exist as a framework, but needs to be very strictly limited. You know like making sure the government allows for freedom of religion, or speech, or association, or maybe limiting the governments ability to take property without due process or to posses arms to use against a tyrannical government....

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Government, if any, need s to keep the heck out of everyone's way as much as possible. this is an over simplification I think. It would be better said governement is there to handle exceptional cases, provide a system for civil resolution of disputes, and to protect the rights when they are infringed by others.
    – SoylentGray
    Jul 25, 2017 at 15:12
  • Fairly stated, though yours is probably more precise. To me "As much as possible" does include exceptional cases and civil resolution of disputes, etc. The philosophy of it stands. Government doesn't go where it's not absolutely needed. It's the goal that may not ever be truly realized, but is something to work toward.
    – Paul TIKI
    Jul 25, 2017 at 19:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .