I disagree that property exists only in so far as a state exists. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without allowing any particular group of individuals to initiate violence against others. In other words, it is possible for people to establish a system of law that precludes a "state".
If people are estabilishing a system of law that is binding to people that don't agree with it, that IS a state ...
Also property has NEVER been estabilished without a state ...
Yes of course we ARE our own body. However, when I say that a person owns his physical body, I only mean to say that each person is the one who may control his own physical body. Nobody else may do so.
That's a given ... only your brain can control your body ...
A state (people who may initiate violence) is not necessary. Only a system of establishing ownership over unclaimed resources and a system for recording ownership claims. Deeds can be recorded without the need for a state (people who may initiate violence).
No you need the state ... if I come across a land and write myself a paper saying that it's mine, that is about as usefull as me crowning myself the king of france ... it's as good as whoever believes me ... for me to have ACTUAL ownership, you need a state to enforce it and say "this area belongs to such and such, and my army will enforce it."
I don't agree it's ad hoc. I think it's a reasonable way to establish ownership of heretofore unclaimed resources.
It's Ad Hoc, because it's based on nothing, it doesn't establish ownership all it does is create a theoretical framework, for which future law COULD be based on ... it's not an actual working principle, it's hypothetical.
Okay. But it is still unacceptable for other people to exercise control over one's body. If you don't want to call that ownership, fine, call it whatever you want. But ownership denotes the right of exclusive use, so I find it reasonable to say that each of us owns (has the right of exclusive use) of our physical body. But again, if you can come up with a better way to express that idea, please let me know.
You cannot sell your own body, no one else can REALLY own your body, since it's controlled by your mind ... it's not ownership, it's agency, you ARE your body.
Then people would regard them as having committed a crime or tort and the victim would be legally justified to pursue legal action.
How? Crime according to who?
Of course, I don't have the right to other people property. However, I can buy widgets, bolts, and dongles from other people, if that is agreeable to them. Then the title to those items would transfer to me and I would become the legal owner.
I have the widgets, dongles, and bolts because someone else gave them to me (transferred the title to me). The fact that someone then bolts the widget to the dongle does not mean that they are still not my property. I still am unclear exactly what items are being confiscated.
So your ONLY imput was the fact that you own capital ... and because of that you get 100% of the output of labor ... thats my point.
But if you think a community can come together and say "this plot of land belongs to bob" could'nt they come together and say "this plot of land is the commons" and wouldn't the latter create MORE freedom for everyone?