For instance, can you be the owner of 1000 can of food?
Absolutely, if you are in the bay area, because the society there allow you that.
What about an island without any other food that is inhabited by 40 other people? I doubt it very much.
>What you can or can't own depends on the circumstances.
You're confusing the act of protecting a right with the right itself. A right does not cease to exist because the law fails to protect it.
Where is that written?
I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body, could be considered as a "natural resource" ready to be exploited by other agents in the environment.
I doubt that throwing copies of "Atlas Shrugged" to their heads is going to change their mind (even signed copies!).
That is how property has historically been justified. Read up on property rights if you want to learn more about it.
>I would like to point to you that your "private property", including your own body, could be considered as a "natural resource" ready to be exploited by other agents in the environment.
The principle of property rights is that you cannot make use of natural resources that have already been appropriated and turned into someone else's property, so no, another person couldn't simply exploit my property/body under the property rights framework.
And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians.
The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding. But then I actually looked at your comment history and the pattern became clear.
>And your first paragraph is pretty much "all taxes are theft", that is usually the mantra of fanatical libertarians.
One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate.
>The economic illiteracy required to come up with your conclusions is astounding.
Worthless ad hominem.
Incorrect. Buildings stand on land (natural resources) and require significant amounts of energy to be erected (natural resource). So does machinery.
IP is the only thing you have going for here. How useful is IP without infrastructure and capital to support it? Is it useful, for example, to know how to make a solar panel if you have no means of producing it or extracting the metals and materials needed to make it, because that area is controlled by someone else?
> One person's "fanatical libertarian" is another person's human rights advocate.
No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion. There's no human right to "not be taxes while enjoying the benefits of infrastructure". Perhaps some libertarians' positions are more nuanced, but you wouldn't know it from their comments.
> Worthless ad hominem.
Worthless libertarian drivel. Calling someone illiterate or incompetent in a subject is not an ad hominem when it is based in fact. It's clearly not your area of expertise, so it's not shameful to admit so.
Everything is made from natural resources. That goes without saying. The question is what portion of the value of the property is constituted by the value of the natural resources.
The value of the natural resource inputs to production form a minor fraction of the total value of what is produced. This is because the effort it takes to configure and organize those natural resources into something with added value is what holds the majority of the value. This is why economic systems make such a big difference in the success of economies. Good laws incentivize and reward effective efforts.
>No. Fanatical libertarians are a fringe group, as is evidenced by elections and the amount of ridicule they rightly garner in any factual discussion.
Ok let's play this game:
Libertarians are the ultimate human rights advocates. The majority believes in a lot of silly stuff, like using violence against non-violent people. The majority believing something doesn't make it right.
Your inane insults are typical of anti-libertarian extremists who can't tolerate someone advocating that other people be left alone and not violently forced to conform to a plan imposed by others.
>Worthless libertarian drivel.
Everything you've written has been worthless and intolerant authoritarian drivel. It's the product of an infantile and narcissistic mind, that psychologically projects their own characteristics onto others in the form of insults.
where is the money in that private deal coming from if not the state? And what it is the state if not and element (for best or worst) of how we, as a society, have chosen to organize?
Well, it's not your proposal that we organize society following your favourite principles instead?
The edge cases are natural resources - the most prominently example being land. But the current bevy of economic laws make no distinction between this class of property and other classes, and limit one's right to what is clearly their own wealth.