[benjiwengy]

Humans bring slaves and stolen goods to the market. Neither of which were supplied by slavers or thieves.

Same thing as natural resources. You are conflating two separate things.

What gives Land its economic value and meaning is its relative difference in productivity ie marginal vs inframarginal Land.

The Saudis are rich because their oil reserves are cheap to exploit relative to those found at the margin of production, like Canadian Tar Sands.

That difference isn't due to the efforts of the Saudis supplying it. It is purely natural advantage ie Land.

What is true of oil is true of all natural resources, but particularly 3D space ie Location.

Hope this helps.

[logfromblammo]

The Saudis only become rich when they extract the oil and sell it on the world market. Otherwise they just have some warm fuzzy feelings, knowing that there are some long carbon chains somewhere underneath their feet. The value of their property right is in the implicit agreement that anyone else that tries to erect an oil rig and take their easily exploited oil will be shot, and any capital brought seized for the benefit of the Saudis.

It is all humans. The energy and engineering requirements of exploiting land pale before the sociopolitical requirements of exploiting it for any particular person's benefit.

A human is not a sellable slave until a slaver captures him and drags him to the block. The stolen goods are just goods that have been detached from the previous labor of legitimized title-service and security providers.

Inanimate objects have no intrinsic value. Every last speck of their value comes from human desires and expectations.

Imagine, if you will, two planetoids orbiting a star 1000 light-years away. One of them is 100 million metric tons of shiny 24K gold. One of them is 100 million metric tons of stinking manure. Which is more valuable?