Honest Melbourne Case Study Questions And Answers

Honest Abe (A): Do you recall Lord Acton’s statement, “[a] people averse to the institution of private property is without the first element of freedom?”
Rattlesnake Pete (P): I do; a libertarian message.
A: And you agree?
P: Yes; liberty is secured through private property.
A: So the implementation of point four, “Nobody may work another miner’s registered claim without his consent,” will contribute to achieving this freedom?
P: Exactly. I believe the right to exclude is constitutive of private property. It follows that if someone does not have this right, they do not have property.
A: What about the inverse? Right now I occupy this chair and therefore exclude you from its use, but I do not own this chair.
P: I don't follow.
A: bundle of
P: I am not sure.
A: Well how do you ensure your claim is not interfered with?
P: With my physical ability.
A: So you would continually stand guard over your property, in order to assert that it is yours? How unproductive! Surely our society would be more prosperous if every person was free of the burden of physically defending their property.
P: I'm not personally concerned for society.
A: I thought not. Your conception of property as a linear relationship between you and your claim speaks for itself. In order for property to exist, the right holder must exercise not only a relationship with respect to an object, but also rights against others. Hobhouse says:
In a developed society a man’s property is not merely something which he controls and enjoys, which he can make the basis of his labour and the scene of his ordered activities, but something whereby he can control another man and make it the basis of that man’s labour and the scene of activities ordered by himself. The abstract right of property is apt to ignore these trifling distinctions…
P: Could you propose a different conception of property which would be more conducive to this