>The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first.
Do you believe obeying property law is voluntary? I find it to be coercive.
The arguments you've outlined are drawing a distinction between which kinds of property are thought to be just by certain schools of thought. However, this is entirely unrelated to the fact that all forms of property are coercive -- enforcing them ultimately requires (the threat of) violence.
Most people fail to make this distinction unless they properly think it through, though I personally find it most grating with the type of libertarian who argues with the "non-aggression principle" or variants thereof. I believe people make this mistake because it can be uncomfortable to admit to yourself that you're in favor of something that is coercive, even when the coercive thing is clearly a good thing overall. I'm sure there's a fancy name for this type of fallacy :)
IIRC the guy that came up with it agreed with that reading on it!
Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.
They soon learn to say the word that other people use when they want to keep stuff. The actual meaning of the word, and that some people's ownership seems to have legitimacy, doesn't dawn on them until later.
(Just to clarify in the age of the Internet: I think we should respect ownership. But the argument that we should do it because it's an innate concept with babies is a bad one, even if it was true.)
When a very small child in a poor family looks at what is under a wealthy family's Christmas tree he's also going to be upset. Does that make a relatively equal distribution of Christmas presents a natural right?
I see no basis for decrying all coercion and mandating transactions be voluntary yet also overlooking the biggest contributor to coercion: property.
People on hackernews and in general tend to view "negative" feelings, envy, etc... as generically "bad". These feelings are evolutionary signals from your primal brain that something isn't going right. Its up to you to fix that, however you see fit.
Then the stronger kid comes along and takes the toy away, because he is stronger and now it's in his hand and he says "it's mine".
Would you find it coercive to forbid the stronger kid to act this way by means of a law (enforced maybe by the teacher) that forbids stronger kids to steal from smaller kids?
edit: oppressive -> coercive, sorry
they also tend to shit when and where they want (would you say that "it is a natural right" too?). The point of upbringing in civilized society is to put under control the "natural" instincts. And what you mentioned is an instinct, not a right. The notion of rights comes later as the rules that the people with developed "bladder control" agree upon in order to live together and cooperate.
