0
2

[–] Decentralist 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Property is a legal construct.

Even though property/territory is respected by certain animals, and predates government or centralized law.

This is like saying Eating is a biological concept: Completely meaningless.

0
2

[–] capitalistchemist 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Moralist/natural rights ancaps are in the same camp as these people claiming that property is a purely legal phenomena. To say that property exists in the animal kingdom and in human society before the era of modern states is to say property is a consequence of realpolitik, and I wholeheartedly agree with this description of property. Those claiming a rights or otherwise 'paper' based approach to property are not describing what it is, they are prescription what they want it to be. That said, varying legal constructs of dispute resolution and 'rights' may exist on top of this economic reality.

0
1

[–] mikenewhouse 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Why are you calling out others for what they think? I'm sure there are some people who are moralists that don't think it is a legal phenomenon.

0
1

[–] capitalistchemist 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It's not so much that they see it as a legal phenomena as much as they see it as an ethical phenomena, and that the categories are close cousins. There is no shortage of people claiming rightful property can only come about through homesteading and deriving trade, that this is 'natural' and an objective truth.

I do this calling out because this whole line of reasoning is anti-practical. It references the game theoretic underpinnings of the institution when convenient, such as in animals. And it simply condemns them when inconvenient, when they drive people to act 'immorally', this condemnation is made instead of actually addressing any of the underlying incentives. The majority of ancap property theory is preaching to the choir, it is proclaiming what we all want to be the only logical, correct, and ethical way of doing things. And it ends there. There is no way to jump the gulf to implementation. Passive incentivization and reenforcing the institution through feedback mechanisms is generally the minor mention while the justness of the system is the bulk of the argument.

I do this calling out to begin to try to get ancaps to think about these things. To stop re-hashing how righteous they are and to focus on how what they want can be made evolutionarily stable, to ponder what environment gives rise to their emergence and stability. And not in the superficial 'we should all learn ethics' sense, in a deeper incentive based and strategic sense.