Your instructor has a rationale for why we should think about the deepest question why we should have any kind of institutuon of property in the first place. Which of the following best represents your instructor's $($possibly misguided$)$ thinking on this issue?

Group of answer choices

Dr$.$ Young holds that there is no evidential or other moral basis for the idea of any kind of right to property, and thus it is okay for people in power to choose whatever rules for allocating and transferring property that seem good to them.

Dr$.$ Young takes the position that we should figure out the moral basis of property because that determines what sort of rules we should have for acquiring and transferring property. For instance, if property is based on utility, then property may be given to$,$ and taken from people whenever doing so best serves the aggregate total good of the community, but if property is based on the mutual consent of the community members, ideally rational people might want stricter rules about when property can be taken away from people, and if the justification for property rights is deontological, a right to retain one's property will be very strong and perhaps inviolate.

Dr$.$ Young takes the position that we don't need to investigate the moral basis of the right to property, because it is clear that the only possible basis for any right to property is maximizing the total aggregate utility of the whole community.

Dr$.$ Young thinks that point of investigating the moral basis of property rights is to find a theory that supports the Libertarian idea that property rights are absolute$.$ Once we have identified a theory that justifies the idea that the right of property is a negative right, we should stop looking, and assert that this theory is the correct way to analyze the issue of property rights.