PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there ar

PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there are limits to those rights.

If you fail to state the limits of those rights in that contract, then it is quite possible to abuse them. But the moral use of property – meaning the ban on involuntary transfers – does not include such uses as rent seeking on property rights THEMSELVES. That would mean a contradiction.

I hope that logic is as clear as it is to me. Maybe not.

Human moral code illustrates that we expect that if you profit, that you profit by contributing something to the agreement.

This intuition is what confused us over interest. Interest is a necessary property of inter-temporal production. It’s not a convenience. Its a necessity. We can’t function without it.

And it is moral, because interest is an opportunity cost paid for by the lender, to the borrower.

However, that does not mean that you can take advantage of human suffering as a lender. That violates the principle of involuntary transfer.

This topic is exceptionally rich turf for libertarian reformation. Because by solving it, we solve the problem of placing limits on property rights such that they are acceptable to high trust societies.

Profound if you grasp it.