At the conclusion of his essay, Rothbard argues that land and animals should be understood originally as unowned "resources" that can legitimately become the private property of individuals. How does this process unfold, according to Rothbard? How does it hearken back to Locke's arguments? Is his argument about what makes "resources" into private property a convincing one? Why or why not? At the conclusion of his essay, Rothbard argues that land and animals should be understood originally as unowned "resources" that can legitimately become the private property of individuals. How does this process unfold, according to Rothbard? How does it hearken back to locke's arguments? Is his argument about what makes "resources" into private property a convincing one? Why or why not? According to Rothbard, Unowned resources such as land and animals are given, to all humans, equally. And that no one should have privileged access to these resources. And, Rothbard also says; that any man who works on this land, or domesticates these animals, for the production of goods or the advancement of humanity. Should then, by this law, be granted ownership of these resources. He believes that this is the undeniable law of nature and should be observed by every person on earth. This is similar to of how every man is entitled to property Locke’s ideas and the freedom to do with it what he chooses, as long as it does not infringe on another mans liberties. And that that freedom is, according to Locke, God given (or as Rothbard puts it, Given by nature). And that no earthly authority, or state, can invade those rights.The fact that someone can obtain ownership of such resources, though the of them, is a legitimate statement. “taming” Because these resources, in a way, belong to everyone. And whoever takes the time and dedication to domesticate these resources, for the use of all mankind. Is righteously using them and deserves, by that right alone, to take ownership. Ball Why does Ball think "Marketopia" is unfair? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not? Ball There does not seem to be anything inherently unfair about treating your professors as "service providers," and seeing yourselves as "costumers" partaking of their services. Nevertheless, Ball still seems to think there is something wrong with this model. Why? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?
At the conclusion of his essay, Rothbard argues that land and animals should be understood originally as unowned "resources" that can legitimately become the private property of individuals. How does this process unfold, according to Rothbard? How does it hearken back to Locke's arguments? Is his argument about what makes "resources" into private property a convincing one? Why or why not? At the conclusion of his essay, Rothbard argues that land and animals should be understood originally as unowned "resources" that can legitimately become the private property of individuals. How does this process unfold, according to Rothbard? How does it hearken back to locke's arguments? Is his argument about what makes "resources" into private property a convincing one? Why or why not? According to Rothbard, Unowned resources such as land and animals are given, to all humans, equally. And that no one should have privileged access to these resources. And, Rothbard also says; that any man who works on this land, or domesticates these animals, for the production of goods or the advancement of humanity. Should then, by this law, be granted ownership of these resources. He believes that this is the undeniable law of nature and should be observed by every person on earth. This is similar to Locke’s ideas of how every man is entitled to property and the freedom to do with it what he chooses, as long as it does not infringe on another mans liberties. And that that freedom is, according to Locke, God given (or as Rothbard puts it, Given by nature). And that no earthly authority, or state, can invade those rights.The fact that someone can obtain ownership of such resources, though the “taming” of them, is a legitimate statement. Because these resources, in a way, belong to everyone. And whoever takes the time and dedication to domesticate these resources, for the use of all mankind. Is righteously using them and deserves, by that right alone, to take ownership. Ball Why does Ball think "Marketopia" is unfair? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not? Ball There does not seem to be anything inherently unfair about treating your professors as "service providers," and seeing yourselves as "costumers" partaking of their services. Nevertheless, Ball still seems to think there is something wrong with this model. Why? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not?