Talk:Original appropriation

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Libertarianism

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 2 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Uncontested RM. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (economics) → Original appropriation – Though overly focussed on Rothbard's perspective, this article clearly refers to Original appropriation "of previously unowned natural resources", as the first sentence says, thereby excluding other forms of appropriation. WP:NATURALDIS is the better way here, even more as the "economics" disambiguator doesn't really work for this concept, a concept used and understood in economics and economic history as well as in law and sociology. The disambiguator also keeps us from developing a complete overview of original appropriation in both economic history and history of thought.
Note that the Homestead principle is no replacement as that term refers to a particularly libertarian, and mostly U.S. focussed perspective. In a way, Locke is actually being appropriated there, as he didn't refer to the "homestead principle". --PanchoS (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Music1201 ^talk 17:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This RM probably didn't get good visibility or something... but there's no "original appropriation" bigram anywhere in the current article. The article is not very clearly supported with citations to be certain about that claim, and also looks to be orphaned in the article space. Per RM procedures, this could have been closed as unopposed before my comment here (?) but I wouldn't object to a bold move as suggested, with the possibility of putting this article back here after expansion — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.