Appeal to majority... oh and you've just scored own goal with this one, because by definition you youself are abnormal as someone who even vaguely falls into the libertarian camp.


I love it when people use the word "decency" to try win an argument.  WTH is "decency" supposed to mean anyhow other than an hand wavy expression for "this is right/wrong because it feels right/wrong to me".




Anyhow, your position seems to be that if person A puts a lot of work into something and person B benefits from the fruits of that work in some way,  B has somehow become indebted to A because B has entered an implicit contract, from the mere act of benefiting.

The problem with this principle is that it is impossible for a central authority to objectively quantify this kind of positive externality for individuals, much less enforce compensation.  

Example: Mike spends 10 years working on a brilliant poem and when it's finally finished he shows it to his best friend John. Without Mike's permission, John graffities the poem onto a bridge where Mary reads it from the train on her daily commute.  She is so inspired by the poem that she decides to give up her job and start her own business, making her, and by extension, her husband Fred a millionaire.  According to your principle, Fred is now indebted to Mike. But how much does he owe? $100 ? $100,000 $10M?.  There is simply no    
objective way of determining this, even if this whole chain of events was public, and even a Big Brother state would not be capable of illuminating all the complexities of social webs.


Life isn't fair according to your definition of fairness. If it was, a heart surgeon who works 24 hour shifts and saves countless lives would make more money than a rich heiress who lives off rent and never lifts a finger.   That kind of "fairness" can only function in totalitarian state.  The heiress is lucky to be sitting on capital she didn't need to work for the same way the inventor of aspirin is unlucky he had to work for capital he cannot sit on.  

As someone else put it well, the purpose of property rights is not utilitarian, the purpose of property rights is to settle disputes over who controls a finite resource.