The Immortal Goon wrote:This, again, has nothing to do with the idea that tomorrow everything goes to an-cap.
At the very least, you fail to address what would happen to everything Trump (or anyone else) owns should tomorrow everything go an-cap.
From my perspective there is only a minority of existing private property claims in modern western common law based economies that will be open to dispute (I can't speak for non-common law based economies). The transfer of property that the state has currently claimed and owns because there will be multiple overlapping valid claims. There are a variety of ways of letting those change hands (Rothbard had a plan for transitioning the USSR for example) each of which have there own advantages and disadvantages. As long as the transfers can happen peacefully I'm not wedded to any particular arrangement.
The Immortal Goon wrote:So in twenty years into an-cap, it would still be impossible to hold land that you later hoped to build upon, say, while you were getting supplies someone could come over and take it from you? What level of homesteading matters? If children built a fort, does that make the land their own? If you chopped down a tree, do you own an acre? Five acres? Ten? What if two people were using the land for wood for their homes and someone else moved in and started to build a house? What if that was land someone nearby was using to graze upon but didn't technically modify himself? If someone mines in Alaska in the summer and rests elsewhere in the winter, is the land abandoned the day after he leaves? The week? The month? These are all disputes that happen every single day as it currently stands and will sometimes turn to violence even with a monopoly of violence only being sanctioned by the state. How would an-cap deal with these property disputes? Execution for whomever draws slowest?
In order to have a valid claim you need to (a) make a claim and (b) have some way that passes the reasonable man test that the claim is valid. The specific ruling by the legal system is dependent on circumstances just like distinguishing between different types of murder (self-defence, first degree etc).
The Immortal Goon wrote:Finally, I have seen nothing to address the issue of people that choose to reject the premise of owning property in the first place.
People who reject the premise of private property also reject the premise of people's rights to their life and liberty. You cannot have rights to life and liberty without also the right to private property. As has been exhaustively discussed since about page 5 of the "Libertarianism and the UN human rights" thread, all rights in the end are property rights.
Of course there are people (many on this forum included) who do not believe others have the rights to their life or their liberty and desire to control and constrain them (or simply deny them all together). These people also do not respect property rights. However, if we had a society that actually respected people's rights to life and liberty then it will necessarily respect the right to property.
BoK's opening remarks were not that he rejected people's right to property but that he wanted to delineate between certain types or circumstances. Fundamentally his delineations are either consistent with the Libertarianism view or are internally inconsistent and irrational, but as he has not come back to the thread and answered my questions it is difficult to know what he really means.
In terms of the "time dimension" issue that I mentioned and that you have questioned, it is dependent on many factors. A house that is unoccupied for 6 months while it's owners are travelling or sick in hospital can still clearly be identified as being owned by someone but a house that is unoccupied for 50 years will clearly show signs of having been abandoned and unclaimed by others. In contrast, a towel and a pair of thongs left on the beach for a week would generally be regarded as having been abandoned or lost but the same towel and thongs left inside someone's locker at work would not be deemed by any reasonable person to have been abandoned or lost. A building site which has been left untouched and unvisited for a couple of months would not be deemed abandoned but one left untouched and unvisited for 10 years probably would be. As I said, different cultures may come up with slightly different rules for assessing the exact conditions that an item has been deemed abandoned and consequently revert to being unclaimed property. They may also have slightly different rules about what happens when the original owner shows up and reasserts their original claim and explains why their claim is still valid (eg they had been continuously paying for services to be connected even though they hadn't been there or cleaned the joint for 10 years). This is noise around a very small subset of property arrangements.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Traditionally un-regulated capitalism processes their women and children through rape and converts the entire population into piles of bodies. Is this still the punishment for refusing to acknowledge the premise of private property in an-cap, or is there another solution that will be tried?
What the heck does that mean? Is it even relevant to the topic?