Okay, cousin, I'll take the bait... I agree with Locke that one has a right to the fruits of one's labor,, but I also agree with the socialists that mere ownership shouldn't generate income.
So, I argue that one has a right to that income which is sufficient to motivate one to mix labor with some property, but any income greater than that is rent.
This is exactly the reasoning. Of course, a farmer who gives no credit to his soil or to the weather isn't a particularly good farmer. In many ways, capitalism was an application of the hunter-gatherer ethos to mankind's productive capacity.
Ah! But in saying that income derived from property can be "unearned" you are moving away from Locke and becoming somewhat... socialistic!
Okay, cousin, I'll take the bait... I agree with Locke that one has a right to the fruits of one's labor,, but I also agree with the socialists that mere ownership shouldn't generate income.
So, I argue that one has a right to that income which is sufficient to motivate one to mix labor with some property, but any income greater than that is rent.
This is exactly the reasoning. Of course, a farmer who gives no credit to his soil or to the weather isn't a particularly good farmer. In many ways, capitalism was an application of the hunter-gatherer ethos to mankind's productive capacity.