Anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians often view their position as simply an extension of a set of axioms that are self-evident, entailing that their position is self-evident to anyone who thinks about it for long enough.
I think their position is far less logically unyielding than they care to imagine. Many of those axioms are arguably mutually incompatible leading to contradictions that are swept under the carpet by arbitrary ruling. Take, for example, the so called non-aggression principal . You could argue that in a literally free market anyone is free to be aggressive and limiting everyone’s right to aggression is a breach of base principals. Incidentally, we should be free to breach contracts if we like too. I assume that the argument against this would be either to discount it as irrelevant (i.e. not understand it) or argue that the definition of a ‘free market’ incorporates individual rights such as the right to deny everyone else the right to be aggressive or the right to breach a contract. Or deny the definition of personal freedom allows aggression or breach of contract. I think that’s just tweaking a definition to hide a contradiction.
I don’t think it’s a flaw to incorporate a principal of non-aggression, of course, but it is irrational to pretend that you have an airtight position that follows inextricably from self evident axioms when you really don’t. The right to not be attacked by others is as morally self-evident as such things get. It just doesn’t play well with some of their other ideas.
Not all of the axioms are so self evident. I have seen many discussions between Libertarians and people that (they assume) are socialists or communists in which the backstop of the Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist position is ‘property rights’. They will accuse the other of not accepting property rights, say, because they think something shouldn’t be privatised, then, well… will really just laugh at the other person for being so ignorant as to not accept or grasp the self evident nature of property rights and their intrinsic importance for production.
Believing that resources should be shared is communism. In reality (almost) everyone is communist to some limited extent because everyone shares things. Similarly, no-one is a ‘pure’ communist, everyone has limits to what they think should be shared. I suspect that even the most left-leaning people accept the idea of property rights.
I want to make two observations: 1) those people, the communists or liberals or whatever word people use, really don’t have an issue with property rights, they have an issue with claimer rights and 2) property rights are not fundamental rights.
Property Rights are not Fundamental Rights
It’s interesting to note that property rights, variously defined, have a property of exclusivity that other fundamental rights really don’t have. A person’s right to self-expression, or religion, or education, or freedom, does not necessarily deny others any rights. However, the right of property, whichever way you define it, intrinsically does necessarily deny others that same right. To me this makes it a very different type of thing to the fundamental rights.
It could be pointed out that if I am ultimately free then I have the right to do things to others that infringe their freedoms, so in some situations my right to freedom can inhibit others’ right to freedom. For example, if I really liked locking people up. The counter argument would be that once you have violated someone else’s rights you have invalidated your own, therefor someone can’t claim those rights as a means to violate someone else’s. But, again, this isn’t the case for property rights. To maintain property rights over a thing others have to be denied the same rights.
So let’s follow this through. You own a field. How did you come to own it? You bought it off someone. How did they come to own it? Obviously, ultimately, there was a point in time in which that field belonged to no-one. Someone somehow claimed it and it became owned by them. What happened is that someone decided that no-one else in the universe can have property rights over this field. How did that person get that right? Property rights can’t come to the rescue here because you have to have the property to claim that right. There exists no right to claim anything as property without reference to some other genuinely fundamental right. Further, neither communism nor socialism, or taxation for that matter, intrinsically breach property rights because denying someone the right to claim a thing as property does not infringe on a persons property rights, because you have to have the property to have that right. What communists really support is not limited property rights, but limited claims to property.
It’s a deep irony that those so against state or government intervention, without even realizing it, endorse arbitrary state intervention. Once upon a time the idea of property didn’t really exist. People had no need for it. In fact ‘time’ here is a bit misleading, such people exist now, history is multithreaded. Then people started to create the religions we’re familiar with and started to believe natural resources belong to God (ideas held throughout the middle ages by Christians and still held by Muslims), and therefor cannot be privately owned. Then some monarchs and religious leaders came along and made everyone believe that they were God’s representatives while States simply insisted they own everything. Over time this was refined into a theory of property ownership designed to protect those with property from those denied it. Eventually this capital was sold back to people, bringing it into the possession of capitalists. Today, some anti-statists are trying to preserve the fruits of statism under the banner of anti-statism. Priceless.
It’s a further irony that our modern understanding of (the legal fiction of) property come almost entirely from the Roman Empire’s central legalist tradition, which integrated large scale slavery as an economic necessity.
The issue of the mechanics of claiming something is far from front and centre in any anarcho-capitalist discussion or manifesto (I think Americans don’t like this word and so use the word ‘Platform’) I’ve seen. Intuitively, I suppose, many would image that most important things are already either in existence and owned, or else will come into ownership by being created, a situation in which claiming rights would obviously fall to the person that created the thing . The trouble is that capitalism allows any conceptual object to be owned, not just fields and factories. Hence we have IP rights and companies currently claiming genes as intellectual property.
 ‘So called’ because it’s far from clear what such an idea entails
 For capitalist it would be the person who owns the factory not the person that did the work