>Except that no one asked us if we agreed.

And in your world, no one asks if we agree to property rights.

I'm sure you can distinguish between contracts and rights, so what exactly are you on about?

No one asks people in your society if they agree to a system of property, you just lock them up if they try to use resources they don't "own".

And calling them "rights" instead of "laws" doesn't make following them voluntary.

You know laws are something written by rulers, and you know morals are not.

Punishing people for not adhering to a particular law is not necessarily morally legitimate. Smoking weed is a prime example.

You know those concepts are different, so you're intentionally conflating things, which means you're a troll/sophist.

Economic systems are not inherently morally good or bad, that depends on their beneficial or harmful outcomes.

It may be the case that a system of pure property would lead to the best outcomes, but if so you need to actually argue that.

Putting your preferred rules on a pedestal by calling them "rights" and refusing to engage with criticism is not an argument.

The law of Torts...