A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

This isn't because it is socialistic or communistic, but because such authority is rejected under anarchist principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is annoying. No authority has to be given for property to exist. Just the mere long-term usage is property. No matter how much Castro protests that he has no bank accounts to his name, the fact that the leader's perks are reserved to him makes him a de facto (rich) proprietor. The reason authority is closely tied to the concept of property is because society at large realized that disputes arose and there needed be a legitimate method of resolving them. If any good is rationed, it implies an implicit concept of property because the concept of rationing implies certain groups are EXCLUDED from the use of that good. That means those groups excluded cannot possibly claim any sort of "ownership" rights. And a world without any rationing implies a world of no or little scarcity.