Property itself is voluntary. If you don't consent to that property as a concept, there is no theft or trespass if you use the same land the farmer does to grow your own food. It's not robbery, the property is an illusion.
The only reason you can call it a right is that it's being forced upon us, and thus everything related to it is too. The job is part of an authoritarian labour division, and the property is the authoritarian part
>>Property itself is voluntary. If you don't consent to that property as a concept, there is no theft or trespass if you use the same land the farmer does to grow your own food. It's not robbery, the property is an illusion.
You could say the same thing about a person's right to their own body. If you don't consent to their body being theirs, there is no rape or violence when you touch them without their consent. Bodily autonomy is an illusion according to this malevolent, bad faith argument.
It's self-evident, from the perspective of any coherent moral framework, that people have a moral right to exclusive access to their own body, and the wealth they produce or acquire in voluntary trade, and that the people who disagree with this have no respect for others, or regard for the best interests of society at large.
Just think how absurd it would be in the Fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper, if the Grasshopper used your argument to demand the Ant forfeit the food he had painstakingly stored up for the winter, and the disastrous social consequences if this pathological moral framework were socially accepted.
You can't compare an individuals rights with systemic rights and try to draw moral equivalency between those. That's just dishonest.
An individuals right starts and ends with that individual. Private property rights however encompasses the entire system, and all the people within that system, and must therefore be evaluated completely differently, including wrt morals.
You're incorrectly putting a person's right to their property, i.e. their right to make exclusive use of what they produce, into a different category from a person's right to make exclusive use of their body.
Your socialist premise is an arbitrary dictinction to rationalize socialism.
> You're incorrectly putting a person's right to their property, i.e. their right to make exclusive use of what they produce, into a different category from a person's right to make exclusive use of their body.
Yes of course I do? Because I just explained why they are different things, which you haven't responded to.
The only reason you can call it a right is that it's being forced upon us, and thus everything related to it is too. The job is part of an authoritarian labour division, and the property is the authoritarian part