[eej71]

Well I think if you have a moral claim over someone else - their failure to fullfill that claim is going to be an issue that has to get resolved with or without their consent.

My attempts to describe what I think is the logical consequence of that view of rights should not be taken as an endorsement of it.

[richardanaya]

> taken as an endorsement of it.

definitely

> if you have a moral claim over someone else

This is exactly what I think the danger of bad philosophy leads to, people confusedly believing they have a claim to control people just for existing. The right to pursue life do not require an automatic claim to control the life of others merely for existing. The "right" to a certain quality of life does, however imply a belief that it must be provided by some means.

[sprucevoid]

Every claim to property over any parcel of land is fundamentally a coercive taking in that it tries to forbid everyone else, billions of people, from using that piece of land. Any attempt to enforce that land claim is an initiation of aggression against other people freely moving about in the world. In that way any system of property, libertarian or not, has at its root coercion. Some coercion is table stakes for civilization and that is ok.

[richardanaya]

> Every claim to property over any parcel of land is fundamentally a coercive taking in that it tries to forbid everyone else,

Something can't be "taken" if it's not owned.

Property rights systems exist because people use property to achieve their life's values, and having billions of people argue over how to use land is not enactable (I hope that's obvious).

People's lives are not served by telling billions of people who want to use a plot of land to "fight it out", and thus governments have reasonably enacted systems that gives gives people both physical and intellectual property based off their. efforts.

This isn't to be said that property systems can't be improved, our intellectual rights property system obvious has many ways it could be improved (and it changes as we discover new knowledge). The end goal of these political policies though is to create social systems that allow individuals to maximally pursue their life.

Property systems goals are NOT to give everyone a certain quality of life.

Take a look at even the most communist/anarchist society you can imagine (the kind with people who hate those who own property), and you will see systems of an authority being grasped for that help coordinate use of material means in order to avoid violence. Reality cannot be escaped.

[sprucevoid]

> Something can't be "taken" if it's not owned.

Sure it can, someone can take land in the plain everyday sense that they occupy it and tell others to stay out. But that act, and any attempts to enforce it, is coercive and aggressive. Which proves that any system with property rights, including every libertarian proposal ever made, is coercive. That's ok but it also means that your "is it voluntary?" complaints are futile and self-defeating.

> Property rights systems exist because people use property to achieve their life's values

What's your empirical evidence for that claim? The actually existing legal construct of property in countries around the world, and in international treaties, in fact serves a whole range of goals. In every prosperous country on earth there is room for both private property and taxation for public provision. In empirical studies of life satisfaction and happiness the top is consistently dominated by democratic countries with extensive welfare states funded by taxes https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2024/WHR+24.pdf#pa...