9873259735609

I'm not advocating for property rights over natural resources. I'm advocating for property rights over artificial objects created by labour applied to natural resources.

I think it's self-evident that a person should not be deprived of what they create without their consent. I'm not sure what you mean by "mutual agreement", but I assume you don't mean that literally, as there would be no conflict and no need for any kind of ethical theory in a situation where everyone agrees.

> I want to build a table, so I chomp a tree. You want to build a chair, and you chomp another tree. I want to build another table, so I must walk a longer distance to find a tree. If everyone cut trees, it will get harder to find one.

No coercion here. There is no force or threats of violence involved in these scenarios. Imposing a negative externality on someone is not necessarily coercion.

> Another person want to build a music instrument. He need some special kind of tree, with some specific size and age, so he want all of us to not cut that tree. Does he make a fence to protect the tree while it's growing? Does he hire a bodyguard for the tree?

That would likely be coercion. Unless he planted the tree, or acquired it by consensual means from its previous owner, he doesn't have any more right to the tree than anyone else. Although, I don't think it would be as bad as if he had taken the tree from someone who had already cut it down because in that case he would have deprived them of the product of the labour that went into cutting the tree down as well.

There are natural resources that nobody created. Using them to create something is not coercion and results in property that can be traded for other property or services. Property can be coercion (e.g. untouched land claimed by or with the support of the state), but it doesn't have to be.

Not in most of the world, but I could definitely see someone get arrested (or worse) for that in the US.

There are plenty of people who cannot get care at government hospitals in countries with "universal healthcare", because of waiting lists, because the government doesn't consider the treatment they need to be worthwhile, etc. You could easily find some of those people on crowdfunding sites, and the media occasionally writes about such cases. The problem is that paying for their treatment at a private hospital would be very expensive, unless the ransomware would accept a partial crowdfunding contribution.

I doubt either works well, but I think corporations like Amazon are likely to be more susceptible to public and investor pressure because their relationship with the public and their investors is voluntary and can be unilaterally ended by those parties, while the government's relationship with the citizens is not voluntary on the part of the citizens. We can stop using and investing in Amazon if they don't listen to us, but we can't do anything against the government except voting for a another politician who will probably do the same thing and is in any case unable to actually change things even if they wanted to.