Trulib and Michael,
If what you say is correct then we could not call Robinson Crusoe’s tools property. What terms would we use to distinguish between objects he discards and objects he maintains?
What are these objects called.
I feel that many libertarian’s load their definitions to imply more things than they should. They do so to push an agenda. What results however is the encouragement of nihilism as other individuals choose not to accept your terms. Since you’ve convinced them that property and rights mean a certain thing, they reject the whole framework. I feel that property is an economic term, is value free, and neutral. The concept of rights in and of itself is the same thing.
I also, like you, posted about this a long time ago. My definition, unlike yours, is highly neutral and fits all occassions where the term “rights” are used so there is no obscurity. There are many advantages in keeping the term “property” and “property right” separate.
What advantage in understanding do you gain in conflating the two? I read your post and I disagreed from the first line “All rights are property rights,”.
It’s a loaded definition, your granting it more credit than it’s worth, in an attempt to influence people in a certain way.
I wrote about rights here.
If property and rights inherently meant the same thing, why are their two different words for them? Why are they used in seperate situations implying different meanings? Does it expand our understanding of each concept to conflate the two?
I feel that my definition of rights, and property is more compatible with remaining neutral, and is complimentary to the praxeological framework of AE.