Just because property can be used to artificially create scarcity, due to laws that were piled on by centuries of history and common use, does not change the na

Just because property can be used to artificially create scarcity, due to laws that were piled on by centuries of history and common use, does not change the nature of property. You are not contradicting his idea of property, what you say only has an impact on how to use the current system. It's not relevant to the conversation. The idea is to define property, to get the first principles before deciding how the Law should be to protect those principles. To put it another way: that the current laws can be used to create a perversion of property that allows artificial scarcity, does not say anything about the nature of property itself. > property—the legal exclusive privilege There is a concept of property that predates and transcends your legal system, so this definition is insufficient.