Originally Posted by
Odin
Well I think that is an oversimplification. First of all, not all people acquire property in a just way, especially those who have been assisted by government in their business. In a free market everyone would have acquired property justly, but that isn't what we have. Freedom, and capitalism, would hurt a lot of wealthy people, and help a lot of poor people, opening the market up for genuine competition and getting rid of special favors. Society's resources have been skewed toward the wealthy through crony capitalism, eventually the free market will balance it out but many people have certainly not made their wealth legitimately.
We also have people who have been gifted "ownership" of natural resources by the government. Specifically I'm thinking of that T Boone Pickens guy who was trying to get the government to sell him vast amounts of underground water. Natural resources belong to the people. In my world the government would reduce regulations on the production of resources, but if you are an individual or corporation making money off the people's resources, then yes you do owe a percentage of that profit to the people especially if the government has protected it for you and kept competitors off the land you have been using to extract resources. Although I will say that is different than developing your own property, for instance, as farmers do.
This is a complex issue and we can go deep into political philosophy if you want to, but free men and women consent to the protection of their liberty, as long as that protection is sensible and efficient. I believe that involves a military that can defend us, a police force that works, a judicial system that practices real justice, and emergency services, and that is about it.