Two rival approaches to property rights dominate contemporary political philosophy: Lockean natural rights and egalitarian theories of distributive justice. This article defends a third approach, which can be traced to the work of David Hume. Unlike Lockean rights, Humean property rights are not grounded in pre-institutional moral entitlements. In contrast to the egalitarian approach, which begins with highly abstract principles of distributive justice, Humean theory starts with simple property conventions and shows how more complex institutions can be justified against a background of settled property rights. Property rights allow people to coordinate their use of scarce resources. For property rules to serve this function effectively, certain questions must be considered settled. Treating existing property entitlements as having prima facie validity facilitates cooperation between people who disagree about distributive justice. Lockean and egalitarian theories endorse moral claims that threaten to unsettle property conventions and undermine social cooperation.

中文翻译：

---

为人类财产理论辩护

两种对立的财产权方法主导着当代政治哲学：洛克的自然权利和分配正义的平等主义理论。本文为第三种方法辩护，该方法可以追溯到 David Hume 的工作。与洛克式的权利不同，休谟财产权并非以制度化前的道德权利为基础。与从高度抽象的分配正义原则开始的平等主义方法相比，休谟理论从简单的财产约定开始，并展示了在固定财产权的背景下如何证明更复杂的制度是合理的。产权使人们能够协调他们对稀缺资源的使用。为了使财产规则有效地发挥这一作用，必须考虑解决某些问题。将现有的财产权利视为具有表面上的有效性，可以促进不同意分配正义的人们之间的合作。洛克和平等主义理论支持可能会扰乱财产惯例和破坏社会合作的道德主张。