The Lockean Proviso is more important than the labour theory of property

The labor theory of property or labor theory of appropriation is a natural law theory that holds that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources. (This is not to be confused with a labor theory of value). [Wikipedia 13th March 2010]

For what reason is something owned? We might argue that there is a pragmatic arrangement in property rights, that if resources are allocated appropriately we have the best outcome for individuals and, by necessity, for Society.

But is there a moral argument to say that some things are owned by a particular person, we might say that our bodies are owned by their own person as a matter of faith.

If we own what we make, that would suggest that we have a right to dispose of it at our will. We might build something that blocks the rights of another person and this would suggest that ownership under those circumstances is not pragmatic. If I place a carpet over a pathway am I entitled to charge compensation to all those who walk over it? Does building a fence around a piece of land entitle me to charge rent to all those who reside in it?

To have built something is not sufficient to have conferred ownership of that object to the one who has built it.

There is no reason to argue that because we have constructed a thing, that it is owned by us. To have built something does not confer ownership; it must not unduly restrict the rights, access and abilities of others.

To own something we must show that we have not violated the Lockean Proviso, if we build something that violates this then it is not owned by us, the Lockean Proviso supersedes the labour theory of property appropriation.