Abstract

An „Original Acquisition‟ justification of strong private property rights, allegedly first enunciated by John Locke, has in recent decades been increasingly adopted in some circles. These writers purport to demonstrate that as property rights may exist prior to, and provide a justification for, government and other forms of social constraint; they should therefore to the greatest possible extent be immune to the latter‟s interference. Yet many theorists equivocate as to whether the acquisition they write of is only an in-theory possibility, or whether it has occurred historically. Both approaches have benefits necessary for the complete OA justification sought; but crucially, the two are mutually exclusive. By overlooking this problem, OA theorists leave themselves in a precarious position, their work seemingly easily dismissed. However serious attempts to address the problem have resulted in theories that lack much of what is needed for OA to justify a regime of strong property rights