Thanks for a very interesting perspective. I do however, have to say I am a bit confused on your perspective of property. You write, "Simply because one works to make something does not make it theirs. The most obvious case of this is a child. The mother works a great deal to produce a child, and those who raise him invest a tremendous amount of effort and resources in doing so. This does not make the child their property, nor does it give them any claim over the child's future earnings."

To me, this is NOT the most "obvious" case as you suggest. I'm no scholar, so I have no idea what the "Labour Theory" is; most of my conclusions have come from my own observations - not from reading other theories or from study. Sometimes, I downright hate "theory." :)

I have held a very simple view (for me, simplistic is best) regarding property. Perhaps it IS similar to the "Labour Theory," - I really don't know... but I have never thought of "labour" as far as giving birth, or assisting the development of a child, "labour."

Here's where I differ from you - for me, there IS A DIFFERENCE between procreation and creation.

I may have a purpose, when I have sex, to procreate, but I also may not have a purpose to procreate. Procreating life is not anything like "creating" a tool or piece of art that I think I would profit from, or enjoy.

For me, the very premise of the right to property is simply an extension of what I know - my mind - and my own thoughts, and my ownership of my thoughts.

To procreate another being that will also have ownership of their thoughts is nothing like labour in creating something.

I'm not sure if I am being clear here - but the very fact that in procreation, there is a new conciousness that owns its own thoughts makes it totally different than labour of anything else. So, bear with me here, as I think, from my perspective, your example is fallacious.

So, knowing that, that I don't accept your example of this creation of a new conciousness in regard to ownership of property, you say, "Simply because one works to make something does not make it theirs."

Would you be more specific on this? What then DOES make a "thing" a person's thing?

Bearing in mind our different idea on procreation vs. creation, are you suggesting that if I make a piece of wood into an axe, that this act does not make the axe mine?

If so, what do I have to do in order to make the axe mine, that I have just created and made?

If I plant seeds, what must I do to ensure that the fruit of those seeds are mine, and that I can trade with someone that planted different seeds?

Or am I completely not understanding you?

And, while we're at it, do you accept my difference of premise regarding procreation and creation? I procreated a son about four years ago.. he was born three years ago.. he IS my son.. but not in the sense of property, but in responsibility. His own mind, and what I see of him using his mind, fascinates me. I could NEVER own it. However, I could also NEVER allow some other person to take him from me either - but that is not to do with "property," but to do with other issues including love and responsibility.

I think :)

Bare with me on this.. I'm trying to work this all out. I dislike "theory" - instead, I prefer to point to reality, and justify logically my beliefs and thoughts based on what is real, and not just on someone's ideas. If that makes sense :)