A ship sinks, and a few dozen survivors manage to make it to shore on a deserted island. One of them, by the name of Jones, is a mechanic, and by pure happenstance is carrying his tools when he gets on the life raft.

The Island is relatively resource rich, although conditions are difficult, and the survivors manage to eke out an existence for themselves requiring approximately 40 hours a week of labour from each of them. Naturally they manage this. Jones’ tools are of great help in achieving this standard of living.

Then one evening around the fire Jones announces that he will no longer be working- instead he expects the labour of others to be used, in part, to feed and shelter him. He reasons that since the tools belong to him, his contribution is providing capital. He expects the others to not use the tools unless they pay him with the necessities of life. Naturally, the others are not impressed.

Should the contribution of Jones’ tools be regarded as a contribution by Jones?

Is Jones’ decision reasonable?

If his decision is not reasonable would the others be justified in seizing his tools and expecting him to work for a living like everyone else?

If so, is this situation relevantly analogous to our society?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s