Matt Bruenig makes the claim that libertarian thought has no way of coherently justifying the initial acquisition of property. How does something that was once unowned become owned without nonconsensually destroying others' liberty?
This post is inspired from a conversation I had with a colleague of mine and his brother. The conversation was largely about intellectual property rights and whether they were a benefit or hindrance to market innovation. The principled issue is that intellectual property rights are neither property nor a right. Sounds insane at first, doesn’t
