1)Full private property rights
2) Without statement to any intrinsic or intangible values to humanity or human value, when exchanged the value of labor is determined in the same method as any other commodity.

Do you all agree with these? Why or why not?

Is a river or a creek running through your property?

2) I don't think that labor can really be separated from human value. Basic physical labor can be assesed simply, but mental and/or intellectual labor is also an important commodity, and cannot necessarily be valued in the same way as physical labor.

1) As long as those property rights do not affect others. For example... If a chemical company owns property and decides to dig a hole and dump waste, it affects others as well.

I'm curious what you mean by this. Even if the values for intellectual labor is more complex and more important, it's still developed in the same manner, which is that of any other exchange commodity.
Yes, well externalities and messing with public goods obviously don't fall within the realm of what you've got a right to do with your stuff. If I own a gun I don't have a right to shoot you even though the gun and bullet both belong to me.

it is developed in the same manner, yes, but it cannot truly be separated from the human that spawned it. Art, for example... The value of the peice is based on what the consumer is willing to pay for it. That value may or may not be related to the quality of the work itself, but upon the evocative content of the work to the consumer.

A can opener is useful to a consumer, but most are essentially alike. If you don't like the price of one made by Company A, you can get a different one made by Company B that does the same job.

Intellectual property does not work in that manner since EACH one is unique. A bookpreference might be based on the quality of the work, but it might also be based on a particular liking of the styles of Dan Brown, Mercedes Lackey or Terry Goodkind. One cannot truly judge that 'exchange of commodities' because of the nature of the product.

Does that make sense?

I think so, if this is right. What you're saying is that as intellectual property is unique and thusly not completely interchangeable with any other piece of a similar sort of intellectual property. More or less, that's the jest of what you were saying, right?

In economics they have these things called "relevant markets" in which all the participants are in a given environment interchangeable. So although one piece of art may be unique, there may be several or several hundred that would fulfill the same need. That being said, a logical seller would sell in the marketplace which would generate the best price, and thusly if there is a market for a given anything specifically with plenty of demand and just that one supply, you wind up with things like a Jackson Pollack painting being the most expensive object in the entire state of Iowa.

Capitalism is good and the best system to run the economy. Money is not evil.

__________________
“Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another.”

Ayn Rand define capitalism as a system with moral justification. Capitalism adhere rationality and its ruling principle is to protect man and his survival. Very different from any economic system like communism or the totalitarian

__________________
To be a poet or nothing.