I'm not a Marxist, either. But I'd dispute that being Marx's thinking. Generally speaking, Locke's social contract theory is the one that classical liberals, and the liberal tradition more broadly, tend to identify with in terms of thinking about how to judge the legitimacy of a government.
You're making an argument-from-capacity. Not an argument from a right. You're making a very weird category mistake, here.
Well, Rousseau's theory of the social contract tends to align more closely with socialist and Marxist thinking. So there's that. 🤷🏻♂️
If we're arguing that "property" has different meanings in different contexts, we're effectively just having a semantic argument and spinning in circles. In my humble opinion, if you're trying to reason carefully about things, you should strive to use definitions that are applicable in all domains, rather than redefine the contours of the definition on a per domain basis, while simultaneously holding it to be the same concept due to semantics.
While Locke was very much influenced by Hobbes, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Lockes views, here. He absolutely did not think we should exist in the state of nature, and very much thought we should grant government legitimacy through his social contract theory ...
I don't agree with that definition of property rights. I believe property rights are socially contingent. What you are describing is what Hobbes would call the state of nature. And I think "property" is a largely meaningless concept in that domain.
I mean, I agree with all this. My point to this thread was to argue against the Rothbardian claim that property is foundation of all human rights.
So if I take something from you, do I have an "inherent right" to use violence to prevent you from taking it back, merely by it being a possession?
My whole argument all along has been they're not an inherent right.
If a relay that is federated through some side-protocol a "bad actor"?
I would argue our concept of property was developed for the very purpose of avoiding this state of nature scenario.
Aside from the Nostr spec, what *really* prevents relays from acting in a federated manner, if someone wanted to implement Nostr relay software that supported some kind of federation protocol? It almost seems inevitable that someone is going to try this.
That's my interpretation of his claim here, yes. But then the foundational issue isn't property rights at all: it's just violence itself, and the ability to exert your will over others.
Well, because we were a tribal species before we created the first large settlements and agriculture. And when we look at tribal humans from recent history, we observe they don't have a concept of property rights in many cases.
So to do a thought experiment: if I can overpower you and there's nothing you can do to stop me, does that mean I hold moral title over all your possessions, that you have no ability to stop me from taking from you?
But there are cultures that literally have had no concept of property rights at all. Including some Native American cultures. The mere possession of something does not confer the same dynamics that the concept of property confers.
Go on ...
Dogs have no concept of property, I assure you. The mere fact an animal way want to retain something in its possession does not imply it has a sense of *ownership* over that thing.
I want to retain possession of my 8 year old son, as I don't believe he can fend for himself. But he is not my property. This is not a good proxy for imputing a concept of property rights.
Modern humans have existed for 60,000 or so years. It's not clear exactly when we developed a concept of property. But it was likely not until we created the first cities in ancient Mesopotamia. Which was only about 7,500 years ago. So I'm sticking to my "vast majority" of history. Indeed, we have encountered cultures in recent history -- particularly aboriginal tribes around the world -- that had no concept of property.