[Poohbah]

Please tell me what 'goods' are provided by a 'collective'?

Your problem is that you're using the wrong definition of "good" to frame the question.

In terms of merchandise, the short answer is: nothing.

In terms of basic societal needs--the common defense, protecting the populace from criminal activity, a system of adjudicating civil disputes--those "goods" (as in "locking up murderous psychopaths is A Good Thing") can't be produced on a purely individual level; some level of consensus and agreement is necessary.

The problem is that the liberal twits lump all manner of activity in "social goods," even when they are most assuredly NOT good things.

[SES1066]

Good point, you were correct that I was equating 'good(s)' with material items. In my defense, this is the venacular of the authors since money is, at the base, a symbolic representation of material goods. As you point out, there is definitely, a 'good' coming out of communal decisions and actions which defines the need for society and government.

These writers state that what is earned through labor does not belong to the laborer but rather to a nebulous structure of agreements and laws. In doing so, as mentioned in other posts, the definition of property and ownership is subject to interpretation and manipulation. It is no accident that these are law professors since these arguments are the meat and drink of their profession.

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the chance to reflect and consider deeper.