I am failing to understand how NAP can be applied to the initial gain of property rights.
A business man makes space ship goes to asteroid belt mines resources and sells them on earth. Does he own what he mined? Who owned it before he mined the asteroid?
Another example which emphasize the problem differently. Lets pretend N libertarians one day wake up in a rather large box. At the center, bottom floor of the box is a food dispenser that can dispense a near infinite amount of food.
Bob is the first person to wake up and discovers the food dispenser. Knowing the value of this natural resource he claims it as his property. He later trades food from the food dispenser for favors from everyone else in the box. The other libertarians have to do what Bob asks otherwise they will not get food since they are not willing to break the NAP.
It is not clear to me that when Bob claims the food dispenser as his property and then trades the food it dispenses for favors weather he is breaking NAP or not.
Does NAP solve these type of problems or do libertarians use a secondary guiding principle to solve them?
> Bob is the first person to wake up and discovers the food dispenser. Knowing the value of this natural resource he claims it as his property. He later trades food from the food dispenser for favors from everyone else in the box. The other libertarians have to do what Bob asks otherwise they will not get food since they are not willing to break the NAP.
Examples like this often provide strong challenges to the right-wing libertarian view on property. As a left-libertarian, I'd like to offer that some of us do consider monopolization of natural resources to constitute aggression, since resources are originally unowned. This is known as Georgism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
A business man makes space ship goes to asteroid belt mines resources and sells them on earth. Does he own what he mined? Who owned it before he mined the asteroid?
Another example which emphasize the problem differently. Lets pretend N libertarians one day wake up in a rather large box. At the center, bottom floor of the box is a food dispenser that can dispense a near infinite amount of food.
Bob is the first person to wake up and discovers the food dispenser. Knowing the value of this natural resource he claims it as his property. He later trades food from the food dispenser for favors from everyone else in the box. The other libertarians have to do what Bob asks otherwise they will not get food since they are not willing to break the NAP.
It is not clear to me that when Bob claims the food dispenser as his property and then trades the food it dispenses for favors weather he is breaking NAP or not.
Does NAP solve these type of problems or do libertarians use a secondary guiding principle to solve them?