Comment: That's not exactly correct

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Private property (see in situ)

That's not exactly correct

That's not exactly correct ironman. Let me give you an example.

You build a tree fort on your land. You own the tree fort because it is a product of your labor yes? What if you have stolen all the materials from your neighbor?

Changes things.

You do not "own" the finished product of your labor. You own the raw materials that you used to build it, and "thus" you can say by extention that you own the finished product. But this distinction is vital to understand. This strikes at the core of the argument against the second biggest mistake of the Constitution (behind slavery) which is intellectual property rights. Or in other words, government granted monopolies which have done more harm to the progress of our species than perhaps any other single force beyond the collectivist mindset.

Either you had the original claim to the wood in the tree house (cut down a tree on your property, or in unclaimed territory) or else you purchased the wood. Its the "wood" you own, not the tree house.

Because of this, it seems that water "can" be claimed if it falls upon private property.

I am not claiming that the German Nesle guy is facist or capitalist or anything else. I could care less what his title is. Im more in the mind to discuss this from a curiosity standpoint. I am very interested in understanding free market systems and property rights, because that understanding is integral to our future liberty. To me, this is a fairly tricky issue, because I can see at what point one man's "property" rights could be used to stamp out another man's right to life in the case of dwindling supplies of drinking water.

Im sure the free market is the solution only because it always is. Im just curious "how" it is the solution. I wonder if there's a Von Mises piece on this?