[aninhumer]

>Except that no one asked us if we agreed.

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

[sukulaku]

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

[aninhumer]

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.

[sukulaku]

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.

[aninhumer]

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.