Max C. Sterling, “Property: What Is It?,” Exit Now (June 28, 2026). Nice piece. Grok summary of the article and our interchange below.
Related
- Libertarian Answer Man: Self-Ownership for Slaves and Crusoe
(Stephan Kinsella, stephankinsella.com, April 2021) - On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession
(Stephan Kinsella, stephankinsella.com, 2025) - Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes
(Stephan Kinsella) - Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework
(Stephan Kinsella, in Rothbard at 100, 2026) - Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society
(Stephan Kinsella; see Part III.C) - The Problem with Intellectual Property
(Stephan Kinsella; see Part III.C.2 and n. 73) - On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse
(Stephan Kinsella, stephankinsella.com)
Note: Some references (e.g., book chapters or exact post URLs) are based on standard locations on stephankinsella.com. Links point to primary sources where available.
Grok summary
Summary of the blog post “Property: What Is It?” (by Max C. Sterling, Exit Now, June 28, 2026)
The post argues that property is fundamentally a conflict-avoiding norm arising from the reality of scarcity (rivalrous goods where use by one person precludes use by another). Without scarcity, there is no need for property rules. Its purpose is to resolve disputes over scarce resources in a just, objective way, enabling peaceful social cooperation (quoting Hoppe on this).
It critiques several common (non-libertarian) views:
- “Property is just another government right”: Rejects this; real property emerges naturally from scarcity/homesteading, not state grants. Current systems are flawed due to state claims (e.g., eminent domain as theft).
- “Property is a social construction”: No—it’s a natural precondition for society itself.
- “Property is only good because it works” (pragmatism): Hollow; pragmatism lacks its own moral standard and can justify conflicting outcomes.
- “Property is theft!” (Proudhon): Addresses the context (critique of feudal/state grants) but calls it a stolen concept fallacy—theft presupposes property.
It also offers an internal libertarian critique, primarily of Rothbard (and Locke):
- Self-ownership is important but secondary. Ownership/property concepts precede self-ownership; the root is scarcity and conflict avoidance, not labor-mixing (which confuses effort with the justifying norm) or self-homesteading (which risks implying sellable slavery).
- Property rights ultimately trace to original appropriation of unowned scarce resources plus contractual transfer, with self-ownership following from first occupancy of one’s body.
Overall tone: Pro-libertarian/Austrian, pro-scarcity-based property theory, anti-state, with emphasis on precise foundational reasoning over metaphors or inverted priorities.
Summary of the Comment Interchange
Your first comment (July 15, 2026, 9:27 am): You highlight the ambiguity of the word “property” (citing A.N. Yiannopoulos on Louisiana civil law: it often confuses rights vs. objects of rights, with roots in Roman law). You link to your own work on self-ownership and emphasize that the core issue with IP is not whether ideas/patterns “are property,” but whether IP laws are just or compatible with libertarian principles (property rights in scarce resources). You note IP opponents sometimes oversimplify by saying IP “is not property.”
PRIB’s reply (11:49 am): Agrees on nebulous definitions but argues libertarians should stick to their own first-principles theory. Cites Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State) for a working definition: ownership = exclusive control of scarce goods; only scarce means can be property. Defines property as “the exclusive right of the single firstcomer to a scarce good.” Intangibles (including IP, and things like ownership/servitudes themselves) aren’t property due to non-scarcity. Leases are contractual. Questions your framing: if IP isn’t “not property,” by what metric is it unjust?
Your pending/recent reply (12:22 pm, awaiting moderation):
- Precise definitions help avoid traps set by opponents exploiting ambiguities.
- Reaffirms your position: Property rights solve conflict over scarce resources via original appropriation, continued ownership (until abandoned/alienated), title-transfer contract, and self-ownership. These are the only justifiable principles; all law reduces to property rights.
- IP is unjust because it imposes nonconsensual negative servitudes on already-owned scarce resources (theft), not ownership of ideas (which is impossible). Links to your writings (e.g., IP as negative servitudes).
- Rothbard’s usage was imprecise, contributing to his own IP errors (with citations to your analyses). Warns against overreliance on metaphors. Ends light-heartedly: “Even Rothbard nods. OTOH, FYMNR!” (For You, My Not-Respected… or similar acronym, I assume.)
Overall interchange tone: Civil and substantive. PRIB defends a strict Rothbardian scarcity definition and probes your IP framing. You clarify the value of precise (non-confusing) terminology while grounding the anti-IP case in deeper libertarian justice principles (conflict avoidance over scarce means), politely noting limitations in Rothbard’s approach. It reinforces your long-standing emphasis on rigorous legal/philosophical clarity in libertarian theory.
