futurefillernow on Nostr: #[2]

quoting nevent1q…4dmp

So I object to Rothbard's natural law conception of property merely on the basis it offers no definitional parsimony, and holds universalist elements in its descriptions when those elements have *no* purchase in all conceivable contexts. That's what one might call an "overloaded definition".

It seems to me, that a lot of people who think this definition of "property" can be relied upon axiomatically to support the notion that *capitalism* is therefore a natural state at a moral maxima, are simply not thinking too deeply about it. In fact, at least in the case of Rothbard, I'd argue he's actually goal-seeking in his definition to get the moral conclusions he wanted to get to.