@Deleted User I also think Locke meant that you have a right to own that what you create 'property' and you have a right to freely exchange that

He lost his shit

the most likely outcome was for it to end in disaster for JF

andys just a softy

And was very angry

there are so many different definitions of property. Ayn Rand describes it as a political right

Andy is just too dumb to realize that

and her entire philosophy is based on individualism and private property

Anyway, if you read the court papers, it's not a surprise to see JF acting like that

That is kinda the problem with trying to argue it, you need to e on the same page as to what it entails @NightOwl

so building a house is one thing

you can buikd a house with materials that you have bought from people. The house would be classed as property

but the land it sits on does not

Like I cant just build a house anywhere I want and say it's mine

Adam Smith wrote about this in wealth of nations

But I think that's what Ayn Rand means by political right

and not a natural right

I would say that whoever gets there first and builds something on it owns it, or at least as far as they can manage it. Do you have a natural right to the space around you/hunting grounds/territory etc. doesn't that fall under the "life" part of life and liberty? You need to be able to use the land, and a part of survival is protecting your food supply from others. So your territory is an extension of your survival. That's why I think it is a right.

so how can you jsutify owning more than what is necessary to survive

As far as enormous portions of land are concerned, I don't think you can justify it. As an individual you cant just say "I own everything west of the Mississippi' and nobody else can use it or set foot on it. Naturally speaking an individual can't manage that much land.

However I might add

that unless the land is contested then there isnt really a problem with owning that much land. If a group of individuals are fine with one person doing most of the farming/food production to the benefit of cheap food so that they can go do something else, then no one will care how much land they are using. The issue arises do to potentially depriving others of those resources.

which would be hindering their ability to survive

I guess to summarize my thoughts, owning a certain amount of property/land is a right, but owning more than that is a privilege provided by some form of social contract.

you can't justify it

It can't be a natural right then

yes if a group is fine with it

so it's a political right now a natural right

owning a small portion necessary for survival is a right in my opinion

your right to life is not dependent on the group consensus

anymore, is a political right

But we know property is

even ancaps admit this

that there needs to be a consensus on property rights

it depends on what is meant by property though

like i said earlier, you can own the house but not the land

your life is dependent on group consensus

you have the right to defend your property, just like your right to defend your life

yes you do but you dont have the right to claim property

simply having a right, doesn't guarantee people wont fuck with you

you cant just say nobody owns this so it is mine