all policies and ideas are part of belief systems. matching them appropriately to reality is the whole point.

the reason why property rights are primary is because respecting them is a universally applicable rule. my property is not protected unless yours is also, by the mental model of an honest society. without that honesty protecting people's property, there is no incentive to produce rather than steal or defraud.

it's the fact that you can't have a functioning society without respect of property rights. sure, you can have hoarders stacking and not using things, denying other people access for no reason except spite, but these are mentally disabled people. most of them are poor and live in houses full of newspapers.

if you don't respect the property rights of all people, you also are implicitly saying that it is not immoral to rob people. if you create exceptions for these rights, that break consent, you can't claim that your exceptions are justice. there is nothing just about being coerced without a verifiable and true liability to do so.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You still need enforcement. I don’t know why you are dodging this question. We know historically there are animal, land, tool, product disputes. Who settles these? It’s very important.

You will find the answer in Austrian economics. Books from Hans Hermann Hoppe will cover your questions.

Read them, thank you. What’s your answer? That’s what I’m interested in.

Property rights without governing enforcement does not exist…especially in a cohesive society.

You only believe in something when you can’t prove it.

What about contracts with predetermined conciliation boards?

It works for international waters. There is not one government to enforce international laws and contracts…

Also you might have a look into the book „free private cities“ by Titus Gebel

So for profit capitalism has royally fucked up just our healthcare system alone and you give me a guy who proposes cities they are run by private companies???