Property = only proper
No property rights = anarchy (no rights, no right to control= anarchy)
Governments are instituted to protect. Property is just something that we exchange some of our time to acquire, such as when we spend hours to till the soil and grow food. So in effect, property is equal to our lives, having been acquired in exchange for a portion of our lives. Some of us have been more effective in exchanging our time and have acquired more property than others. Some of us have kept the property we have acquired rather than consumed it. You say that it is justice to tax more heavily those who have acquired more property, but I say that is taxing one life more heavily than another life. It is true that government as an extension of protecting life also protects property rights. But rights are something that we each possess equally no matter how much or little property we posses, and I think you confuse protecting rights (which we all have equally) and protecting property (which we own in unequal proportions). If the government is protecting rights, we have equal protection and there is no valid argument for charging one man more for protecting those than another man.
The minute you require one man to pay more for government to protect his life and rights than you require of another, you create the incentive for more government, since the person paying less for government is then in a position to get something for nothing. Government is a service that we pay for collectively. If income were the test of what price one should pay at the grocery store for apples, then under your theory of justice, shouldn't we each pay a price based on our incomes and not the same price. If poor people could get apples cheaper than rich people, poor people would consume a lot more apples than the now do.
In a free market, prices are regressive because the price of apples is the same for everyone, but we all have different incomes. So how is it that for one service, government, you suddenly want to adopt the Marxist philosophy and charge people in proportion to incomes.
Why property is not theft?
The RIGHT OF EXCLUSION that barely remains in Private Property itself.
What if a person carries into the restaurant a gun. In Arizona it is legal to openly carry. Does the Owner have the RIGHT OF EXCLUSION ?
This BLURRING of the line has made private property really public property.
"One of the least-understood functions of private property rights is that of determining who may harm whom in what ways. In a free society, it is presumed that the air in a person's house, restaurant, hotel, car or place of business is his property. That means that if you own a restaurant and don't want your air polluted by tobacco smoke, it is your right. Most would deem it tyranny if a bunch of smokers had the political power to get the city council to pass an ordinance forcing you to permit smoking. You'd probably deem it more respectful of liberty if those who wanted to smoke sought a restaurant owner who permitted smoking. The identical argument can be made about a restaurant owner who permits smoking in a city where non-smokers have the political power. The issue is not whether smoking harms others. The issue is the rights associated with property ownership."
The right of first possession specifies that unowned resources come to be owned by the first person or association to establish control over them.
Limits of property rights
“[m]y property rights in my knife allow me to leave it where I will, but not in your chest.”
-- Robert Nozick
Link50Dupes for the state
Do you own your land? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25742871