If you mean a school of economic thought, then yes, the Austrian school, the one that tries to discover economic laws like everyone else was doing in economics before Keynes, the mathematician, uneducated in economics, started writing what bankers and governments wanted to hear. I didn't say E was false. I said that you're barking up the wrong tree trying to assign a numeric value to it. Also, null is not the same as zero. It would be false to say that those valuations equal zero, but it wouldn't be much more likely true to say that they equal some number of units of something, greater than zero. The truest thing that can be said about them is that they are unknown. I just say that our right to appropriate equals true with respect to unowned property and false for owned property. You're trying to show that we should expropriate all first comers to the benefit of possible late comers who may or may not want to use those resources in the future. The past, we know, but the future is unknown. The needs and desires of everyone in society and everyone to ever be born into that society are unknown. Basing an entire theory of law on assumptions about that future and those needs and desires looks like a very bad idea. I stated the conclusion of Hume's is-ought gap. It's that no moral obligation or prohibition can be deduced from any morally neutral proposition. You keep delving into economic propositions, but all the true economic propositions in the world can't lead us to the conclusion that we ought to expropriate all land owners or that all land owners ought to pay rent to everyone else.