Exhaustive list.

An illiterate person is a social outcast, in today's world

I think that's the biggest load of shit I've ever heard, to argue copyright monopoly as a natural right.

Intellectual "property" rights are postive rights.

Because it's "property". Property of an idea. Or word.

I've quite literally never talked to someone who called copyright a natural right

Most ancaps reject IP rights.

The idea is that you have all rights. The only non-rights are anything which infringes the rights of another.

@halfthink But isn't all property kind about positive rights?

Property rights are pretty much "Don't fuck with my shit"

@whiic no, socialised institutions to protect them are though.

How it becomes "my shit" and how one defines "fuck with" are various things

Especially when it comes to common property

Capital is generally required to have copyright. Since you invested something into the idea.

For example, is any land you circle with a fence "your land"?

Under some definitions, yes

If you can defend it, sure. You put money into circling it. Capital.

Capitalism.

"worked" land is activating a part of my memory

@whiic Are you familiar with squatter's rights?

Well, some would fence of more land they can work with, just because it's expected that free land will run out, and being too greedy allows them to sell it with nice profit later, when there's no land to grab onto.

Most libertarians accept the homesteading principle as how unowned property is originally appropriated.

Basically, Molyneux land ownership logic stopped working a few hundred years ago in USA, and was already outdated much earlier in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

Here's a non religious argument for natural rights
https://youtu.be/tx7XUuPrbZo

Make sure to ping him

Ping me when you are active again @whiic , I want to speak about the most annoying ideology of the 19th century with you

Which would be?

Geogism

Wow look at how wrong everybody is

What's wrong with Georgism?

Land use tax is probably more just way to tax than income or trade tax is.

Nothing particularly, it is actually quite compatible with much of liberarianism

They just annoyed a lot of people in the 19th century

Like commies did in the 20th

The police protect the right and not the people. That’s rich

I quite like LVT

@H3llbender And if there's nothing wrong with Georgism or Geo-Libertarianism, what is that makes it annyoing?

I know it annoys hardline capitalists because they like to think land as property the same way niggers were property once.

Georgists do. They had a commune just north of me during the early 20th century