[plib]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

"Libertarian" because libertarians are always eager to point out that laws are enforced at the point of a gun.

I'm not a Libertarian in the usual sense that the description is used however on this point, ultimately, they are correct. It's not necessarily enforced at the point of a gun every day against every jaywalker or speeder but the ultimate underlying sanction is the use of force as can be seen in every courtroom that the accused enters in handcuffs.

But your whole point is basically that the government enforces its laws? Which may include the use of force? I don't disagree with this of course, but I think it's a fairly trivial point for you to have gone to such lengths to explain.

My point is simply that what "property" is is defined by law - which you seem to agree with?

About right, although if we're talking fundamentals I'd reverse it a little and state that without the threat of the use of force the whole concept of a government by rule of law would not survive. Under the rule of law the law can define property. If the law cannot be enforced then the concepts of property that it defines become meaningless. So it is not that the "government enforces its laws", it's that without government force there can be no law, be that the US constitution or the laws of the Roman emperors.

My larger point, though, is that property in land is not any more "natural" than owning a copyright is "natural." In both cases the nature of the property is defined by law, not by nature. The fact that someone can use force to defend a piece of land he is farming is no different from the fact that he can also use force to defend his intellectual property. It's not the force that defines the property.

That is a whole different philosophical question. The very nature of "real" and tangible property makes it easier to define, easier to hold and easier to defend. Intellectual property and ideas are more difficult to control, even before going digital c.f. the various samizdat campaigns. The digital world just compounds this, as the Arab spring and the current conflict in Syria show, not to mention The Pirate Bay. So practically speaking I think defending intellectual property or controlling the proliferation of knowledge is very different both in nature and defense. And that's without going anywhere near the arguments as to what properly constitutes defensible intellectual property, what constitutes originality that would qualify for ownership, what should not be included because of prior existence and what term, if any, should be attached to the expression of an idea as property.

Re: Indians - Interestingly, the abstract of title for my house begins: "All of the land in Indiana originally belonged to the Miami Indians;" it then follows the land as it is ceded to the US by some treaty around 1820, sold by the US to someone in 1821; then sold and subdivided until I purchased it.

I'm not familiar with the Miami Indians, however a quick sidetrip to Wikipedia seems to say that they were in Indiana in the first place because they were forced to move there due to invasion by the Iroquois nation and that the treaty of 1818 followed destruction of their towns, villages and population during several years of conflict with US forces. Both of which, to my mind, reinforce the idea that the subsequent ownership of their land is indubitably due to the application of superior force. They were unable to defend their land and they lost it. You now own it, under the "rule of law", as a result of the actions of the US army.