I don't think your land example is very good. If the man mixed his labor with the land and is using it productively to produce apples, people would not be entitled to the output unless it was surplus from what was being used. Do you favor occupancy and use?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
People would not be entitled to the output.
Wealth redistribution cannot be achieved without force. That is why "anarcho-socialist" is an oxymoron.
@ancapbarbie. Dead on.
I take it you don't favor occupancy and use.
If you mean occupancy and use agreements, it not only doesn't matter whether or not I favor them, as long as they are voluntary, they are consistent with anarcho-capitalist theory. You are free to use, or give away, or destroy your own property, or whatever else you want to do with it. You are not free to lay claim to my property and have armed men come to take it by force if I resist.
By what mechanism do you claim property is yours? If you claimed to own a bunch of land that you don't use, would you be opposed to people using it? Would you use force to keep them out if that was not favorable to you?
Sorry, I don't get sucked into answering loaded questions.
Let me frame your loaded question differently: Can I come to your house uninvited, sleep in your bed, eat your food, drive your car, not pay you a dime, and claim you're violating my "rights" if you object?
My house is occupied and being used so no you couldn't do that. I'm talking about absentee ownership. There would need to be some common sense agreements about what constitutes occupancy and use.
You're arguing semantics now. So you would be okay with me doing so if you were in Morocco on vacation? No, of course you wouldn't. I would be trespassing. Because it's your property.