Where Stossel could be wrong: property = responsibility = prosperity can indeed be found in certain such cases as abortion rights and rape; is the woman's fertilized embryo her property to do with as she pleases? Does the male enter forced into a relationship of being owned by the woman as well, if we grant him property rights? In any case, the recognition of limitations in contracting rights and expansion to full availability under emancipation or at a specific age not only contradicts this in limiting the familial property rights in their children but also at the same time places adolescents who take the idea of property relations seriously under severe strain which neither alternative adequately educates for -- abstinence or contraception are posed choices with abortion as the frontline debate instead of living conditions that nullify those choices. Indeed, property = choice = mandate is a better formulation, where in particular, the mandates are enforced into prosperity by contested forces of expansion; in this sense Mr. Stossel is correct, the inexorable motion of property rights toward the glorification of the machine over humans does lead to tragedy -- one where each generations losses go unrecognized by the next one under the pretense of 'progress'. Cultivation of common livestock in markets does not guarantee survival; there have been and likely will be extinctions and thinly culled populations. This might suggest that endangered species acts are useless and should be done away with, but it fails to account for a fundamental principal of representative public policy in functional democracies -- that the allied recognition of what we ought to be paying attention to in shaping the encroachments of property rights and the tragedy of consolidated centralization found in Lord Acton's famous words, 'Absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. What makes trade issues uniquely difficult on the international stage is the complexity of governance under which the actors jockey for advantage. There are, in fact, some examples of protectionism under limited aegis working: Harley-Davidson comes to mind. It is also why there are anti-trust laws although those have to be actively enforced upwards from within the common polity. For if Mr. Stossel is correct in his line of reason, then even challenges to property rights must be regarded as a reformative responsibility on which prosperity hinges. Else, we wind up with an evolutionary cohort system which appropriates productive labor without accountability and tosses the human remains downwards and out or, worse, in ghettoes and jails to be ground up in the merciless brutality of death merchants. Even that is sporadically recognized in humane societies under the guise of reformation efforts. Consider property rights relations in their use contexts; an axeman can always be hired to toss the workforce out into the streets and looted fruits may be shared among the select ruthless few. This is especially germane in foreign relations, as private markets (not free trade markets) bridge the gaps between democracies and dictatorships. Force rules the day either way, the difference is that vesting common rights to currency as a physical property helps to dilute the nasty tendency to hold sway by force alone. Perhaps Mr. Stossel could post an example of the tragedy of the commons in respect to currency stability. I am sure that would be most enlightening. If the tragedy of the commons is that it is not mediated by some property of exchange which regulates the users of the resource (ie, currency), then maybe he can explain why we should not attempt to protect the public domain as a privately held free market good under a format where the ip base (drug formulas, etc) is made publicly available and held as a market good until expiration at which point the public "deposit" is broken and the holder gains profits. Why shouldn't the public domain as a resource be represented in property rights? If the public domain is a commons tragedy then why not allow property to remain under estates altogether and use patents as a way of inducing public participation in the production and enforcement standards of the marketplace. The ultimate tragedy of the commons is that progression through prosperity inevitably renders what was once efficient and useful property common itself, relegating former property rights people to the commoners. Cases of war and force majeure excepted.

Dear Mr. Stossel:

Your commentary was right on, however, why can't the US gov't see the application to our own farmers? The gov't pays them to NOT grow or increase their herds, yet, as water seeks it's own level, so would the crops in our own market......making more for the planet? Maybe each bushel would net less, but in the long run, more bushels would still create the same profit. We are blessed with the technology to feed far more people and still prosper, so, what is the real problem? At this time, we Americans can do more for this world and still take very good care of our families! What is the real problem?

Sincerely,
Rebecca