The right to exclude others has often been cited as the most important characteristic of private property.' This right, it is said, makes private property fruitful by enabling owners to capture the full value of their individual investments, thus encouraging everyone to put time and labor into the development of resources. 2 Moreover, exclusive control makes it possible for owners to identify other owners, and for all to exchange the fruits of their labors, until these things arrive in the hands of those who value them tProfessor of Law, Northwestern University. I have foisted earlier versions of this paper on numerous patient friends and colleagues. For their helpful comments and criticism, I particularly thank

The right to exclude others has often been cited as the most important characteristic of private property.' This right, it is said, makes private property fruitful by enabling owners to capture the full value of their individual investments, thus encouraging everyone to put time and labor into the development of resources. 2 Moreover, exclusive control makes it possible for owners to identify other owners, and for all to exchange the fruits of their labors, until these things arrive in the hands of those who value them tProfessor of Law, Northwestern University. I have foisted earlier versions of this paper on numerous patient friends and colleagues. For their helpful comments and criticism, I particularly thank

How do things come to be owned? This is a fundamental puzzle for anyone who thinks about property. One buys things from other owners, to be sure, but how did the other owners get those things? Any chain of ownership or title must have a first link. Someone had to do something to anchor that link. The law tells us what steps we must follow to obtain ownership of things, but we need a theory that tells us why these steps should do the job. John Locke's view, once described as "the standard bourgeois theory," 1 is probably the one most familiar to American students. Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing, establishes ownership of it.' This labor theory is appealing because it appears to rest on "desert," 3 but it has some problems. First, without a prior theory of ownership, it is not self-evident that one owns even the labor that is mixed with something else. 4 Second, even if one does own the labor that one performs, the labor theory provides no guidance in determining the scope of the right that t Professor of Law, Northwestern University, and Visiting Professor of Law, University of Chicago. For comments and suggestions I especially thank the George Washington University Property Colloquium, to which a version of this paper was given in March 1983, and

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract