>> But the right to life is an entirely different beast than the right to property. It seems obvious to me that private property (the "right" to sole use of property) exists merely by decree of laws and without it, it simply doesn't exist
Do you need a law to tell you you're allowed to defend yourself if someone attacks you? .. Do you not have that "right" by virtue of being a human being?
Are you only allowed to defend your property if there's a government that says you have property rights?
>> in a scenario where a bank was attempting to evict me from my home and I had nowhere else to go, I would defend my claim to said property
Presumably, you'd have voluntarily signed a contract with the bank, and voluntary assumed the risks involved in it, yes? If your contract with the bank says they get your home if you can't pay back your loan, then it's no longer your property after the clause has been triggered.
If you did forcefully defend "your claim to said property" even when it's no longer your property, that would be a job for some kind of "dispute resolution organization".
The talk of 'rights' are muddying the issue. A 'right' necessarily entails responsibilities onto other entities. These responsibilities must be agreed upon beforehand for a 'right' to be said to exist. I know, it is common for discussions of natural rights as in collective responsibility that exists outside of any agreed upon framework. But careful examination of such a claim reveals it to be impotent. I have no reason to acknowledge your right to the sole use of 1M acres of land unless there was some mutually agreed upon framework beforehand. Once we reach the level of mutual agreement (and some enforcement clause) we have just invented government.
The only 'natural right' I agree with is the right to life and non-interference. Everything else requires an agreed upon framework and thus are purely by decree.
Do you need a law to tell you you're allowed to defend yourself if someone attacks you? .. Do you not have that "right" by virtue of being a human being?
Are you only allowed to defend your property if there's a government that says you have property rights?
>> in a scenario where a bank was attempting to evict me from my home and I had nowhere else to go, I would defend my claim to said property
Presumably, you'd have voluntarily signed a contract with the bank, and voluntary assumed the risks involved in it, yes? If your contract with the bank says they get your home if you can't pay back your loan, then it's no longer your property after the clause has been triggered.
If you did forcefully defend "your claim to said property" even when it's no longer your property, that would be a job for some kind of "dispute resolution organization".