Not to directly answer your question, but to elaborate slightly, many political philosophers would draw a distinction between natural property (e.g. land, natural resources) and 'made' property. They would say that in the case of found property (land, natural resources), property rights are indeed artificial and coercive. But the value that has been added to those natural resources by the efforts of a person is theirs. This is, in part, the justification for the Land Value [1] tax. It's an interesting question where Bitcoin ownership may fall on that spectrum. I'm not sure, to be honest. But I think that might provide a framework for thinking about the issue.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

I think you're mixing up the argument of whether property is just with whether property is coercive.

The arguments you've outlined are drawing a distinction between which kinds of property are thought to be just by certain schools of thought. However, this is entirely unrelated to the fact that all forms of property are coercive -- enforcing them ultimately requires (the threat of) violence.

Most people fail to make this distinction unless they properly think it through, though I personally find it most grating with the type of libertarian who argues with the "non-aggression principle" or variants thereof. I believe people make this mistake because it can be uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you're in favor of something that is coercive, even when the coercive thing is clearly a good thing overall. I'm sure there's a fancy name for this type of fallacy :)

While this position is technically correct, it is absurd. By this logic, enforcing freedom from slavery is coercive as well, because it requires threat of violence.

Exactly! Which exposes the flaw in basing your political ideology around the removal of coercion.

Hmmm I think it's important to emphasise that anarcho-capitalism necessarily relies on coercion, but it's probably a strawman when speaking about its philosophical defenders. Libertarians want to maximise the account of freedom they build up from the originating premise of self-ownership. They are perfectly willing to license the use of coercion to uphold that propertarian system of rights. What they have issue with is the existence of an overweening state that has de facto and de jure power over you no matter what. They want the means of coercion to be privatised; to be outsourced to local militias, private security firms, and the like.

Of course, like all ideologies, they don't think of this as a system of accumulated power that exploits destitute workers and relies on dystopian bands of warlords to beat anyone who protests into submission, but as something like 'a pure state of freedom'.

Indeed, it is - which proves the parent's point. This would be an example of something that's both just and coercive.

But this definition is unusual and doesn't bring any insight. It reminds me about psychological egoism, that says that there is no altruism, everything is egoism. Technically correct, but doesn't help to explain altruism-behavior.

No, I don't believe so. Take taxes, taxes are coercive because if you refuse to follow tax law then the government enacts violence against you right?

Now take property, property is coercive because if you refuse to follow property law then the government enacts violence against you.

It's one to one.

Difference being that the first is someone taking your property and the second is you taking property from someone else.

Yep, you're totally right. My mistake. Good point.

Left-libertarians definitely find property law coercive.

Turns out if you're consistent in applying the NAP then homesteading becomes illegitimate as any exclusive claim on land which was previously free for anyone to make use of is an act of force against literally every other person in the area.

Yup, the homesteading principle is interesting and workable iff there is infinite land of the same sort of quality easily available to everyone.

IIRC the guy that came up with it agreed with that reading on it!

Instead of answering your question, I will leave this:

Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.

Whoever said this can not possibly have children. Small babies couldn't care less about toys which move in and out of their hands, except perhaps for the serious matter of tasting them.

They soon learn to say the word that other people use when they want to keep stuff. The actual meaning of the word, and that some people's ownership seems to have legitimacy, doesn't dawn on them until later.

(Just to clarify in the age of the Internet: I think we should respect ownership. But the argument that we should do it because it's an innate concept with babies is a bad one, even if it was true.)

>Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.

When a very small child in a poor family looks at what is under a wealthy family's Christmas tree he's also going to be upset. Does that make a relatively equal distribution of Christmas presents a natural right?

I see no basis for decrying all coercion and mandating transactions be voluntary yet also overlooking the biggest contributor to coercion: property.

Upset/uncomfortable - maybe, but at who? The rich family? His own family? Himself? Society? All of those?

People on hackernews and in general tend to view "negative" feelings, envy, etc... as generically "bad". These feelings are evolutionary signals from your primal brain that something isn't going right. Its up to you to fix that, however you see fit.

>Upset/uncomfortable - maybe, but at who? The rich family? His own family? Himself? Society? All of those?

"Upset" wasn't my word choice, I was just re-using what clark said to show the emptiness in using childhood feelings to determine what is and isn't a natural right. I don't actually believe our society should be governed by the feelings of children.

> These feelings are evolutionary signals from your primal brain that something isn't going right. Its up to you to fix that, however you see fit.

So rape and pillaging it is then.

I mean those two have pretty clear risks as well. Morality might moderate people's primal feelings but they are even better moderated by understanding opportunity - costs of the actions. Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently "bad" about "negative" feelings. They just tell you something isn't going right and you have to fix it. How you do that - is up to you.

Not all people feel the same way or get the same primal brain screams. Who decides who's right?

Whichever side has more hashing power. Err, I mean muscle+weapon power.

Yup, every armed robbery is a brain deciding that it can take stuff by force instead of making/creating/exchanging it.

> The toy in my hand is "mine,"

Then the stronger kid comes along and takes the toy away, because he is stronger and now it's in his hand and he says "it's mine".

Would you find it coercive to forbid the stronger kid to act this way by means of a law (enforced maybe by the teacher) that forbids stronger kids to steal from smaller kids?

edit: oppressive -> coercive, sorry

Yeah, right, I’m guessing that You have limited access to children. Otherwise You World have known that they recognize everything as their property (unless the original owner is stronger than them)

>Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right.

they also tend to shit when and where they want (would you say that "it is a natural right" too?). The point of upbringing in civilized society is to put under control the "natural" instincts. And what you mentioned is an instinct, not a right. The notion of rights comes later as the rules that the people with developed "bladder control" agree upon in order to live together and cooperate.

What is a "natural right?" How is one identified? How is it distinguishable from a right that is not a "natural right"?

It's begging the question by making the basics of your political philosophy axiomatic.

Private property has nothing to do with toys in your hand; so it's not related to this debate. Do children think owning a factory and making money off of workers working there is a natural right?