Property rights arise from selfownership (which you literally can not argue against without being selfcontradictory) and from those the right of a worker to his produce.
Oh, but I can. Argue against self-ownership that is ;-) Rights, my friend, do not exist in nature. Ownership doesn't exist in nature. Property rights are a legal construct, enforcement of which is depending on the use or threat of force, be it from the government or some libertarian day-dream of a privately owned enforcement agency; it's all the same. Property therefore is the diametrical opposite of liberty. And self-ownership..? That's a meaningless concept as far as I'm concerned; I do not own myself, I AM myself, ownership never enters the picture. As a consequence, free markets don't exist, have never existed and will never exist. It's also meaningless to discuss or theorize about a free society with absolutely free individuals. The only thing we can do, is try to maximize freedom for as much people as possible, and for that it's best to forget about property altogether, and talk about access to the things we all need. I don't need to own a CD, as long as I can listen to the music I want to hear. I don't need to own a home, as long as I have a place to stay where I'm not bothered by others. The problem is that we've attached those needs to property, instead of mutual respect and consideration. We don't need ownership, we need access. And access doesn't have to be determined by ownership or any other contract. Sure this sounds extremely idealistic (I guess we're both extremists ;-)), but it's in fact the way we used to live with each other in tribes.
Back to capitalism, because I suspect (not entirely sure) that you misunderstand what it is. Capitalism isn't defined by markets, free or otherwise. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. There's a difference between personal ownership and private ownership. To own the things we use ourselves is personal ownership; I have my toothbrush, you have yours. Owning the stuff we all use and need is private ownership; the land, the food, the water, the resources from which we make the products we all need. As far as ownership goes, I can live in a world with personal ownership, but private ownership is exactly what's wrong in this world. The American constitution begins with "We hold these truths to be self-evident," and that's a problem; there are no such things as innate rights. Just like way back when we were tribal people, rights are exactly what's allowed by the community you're born into. Rights are always granted and taken away by your fellow human beings.
And so would a worker coop btw, worker-coops are still capitalist provided everyone thats part of it agreed to be and they dont force themselves on anyone else.
This is another reason why I suspect you don't fully understand what capitalism is; worker-coops can exist withing a capitalist framework, but are themselves the opposite of capitalism. Again, capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production, socialism is defined by the workers owning the means of production; worker-coops are a form of socialism, and if that coop sells their products on a market, it's called "market socialism," which is yet another indication that capitalism isn't defined by free or regulated markets. And in our world several worker coops exist alongside capitalist corporations.
I really appreciate your responses by the way, it's always good to see people who are willing to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions; it's something that's becoming rather scarce these days ;-) I hope I've explained sufficiently that I'm not "sidestepping" the idea of a free market; it's just something that's not worth expending time or effort on in my opinion. And I'm sorry to hear about your struggles with your health; I sincerely hope you've found a way to manage and exist at peace with yourself and your loved ones...
"Capitalism isn't defined by markets, free or otherwise. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership "
Agreed.
"I don't need to own a home, as long as I have a place to stay where I'm not bothered by others. "
How is that not ownership?
"Again, capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production, socialism is defined by the workers owning the means of production; "
Those workers are still private individuals, it is still private ownership. Just becouse it is multiple people does not make it not capitalistic.
As for free markets, theres some that are pretty close in the darkweb. Very consumer friendly, when my goods didnt arrive in a reasonable amount of time they just sent it again. I ended up getting both on the same day somehow.
In any event, you seem to draw a weird distinction between workers and owners, between private and personal property which really doesnt make a lot of sense. Capitalism is the workers right to the result of their labour and/or fair compensation for their labour/goods.
The elites are lying to you about capitalism.
Lets say, theoreticly, a lawyer who has a sister who is a doctor was to talk about how universal healthcare would require his sister to be a slave (or other people to be a slave to pay for her if she is willing to accept that and if she isnt then... well then she would have to be the slave ,wouldnt she?) but completly ignores that there is no free market for healthcare. Im not allowed to make cheap insulin and sell it for little more than production costs precisly BECOUSE it is allready socialised. Likewise, im not allowed to treat patients unless ive got a license which in the US would require me to go through their expensive education programs.
Whereas in China theres a lot more of a free market here, with so called barefoot doctors that arent educated for the most basic of needs, you dont need to see someone who went to medschool for years to deal with the common cold.
Again, you dont take issue with capitalism. You take issue with socialism. Or more precisly, with keynesian economics.
On the health stuff, i did receive neurosurgery and now drugs to manage it. :)
The means of production ARE publicly owned in the USA. Since 1798 they are merely rented out to people through what is called "property tax". That is, of course, if you serve the USA, if you use your property to make cheap insulin to provide for the poor you are not allowed to do that.
And, yes, it is very much in line with capitalism to want to provide for the poor. I like helping people and i like to know people are not starving. Thus, doing that does bring me psychic profit. Of course, youve never thought about nonfinancial or even immaterial profits becouse the state does not acknoledge those types of profit. Let me assure you that modern capitalist thought, espacialy austrian economic theories, do account for such immaterial profits.