I mostly agree with Mark, I agree with about 90% of what he said.
A few disagreements:
1. A single person can not have all of a resource, or all of the resources on the planet as property.
Hair splitting distinction
If a person actually was able to peacefully COLLECT, or homestead/enclose all resources without attacking (violence) others, paying people to attack (violence) others, threatening to attack others to collect tax and pay for that project (violence), then that person owns those resources as rightful property. Without violence and without the state, it's logistically and effectively impossible to collect all of a certain resource, or all the worlds resources, because there will be so much competition already who will take what they collect.
2. If you cultivate too many heads of lettuce and can not eat it all before it goes bad, then the lettuce that you can not use/eat is not your property.
Hair splitting distinction
Anything that you yourself/your employees peacefully build, harvest, collect, cultivate, etc is your property. You do not need to give your excess to disadvantaged people, the poor, or the starving, because you have no obligation. You choose what to do with YOUR property. If your excess is going to go to waste, then it is spiritually more prudent and of higher consciousness to give it away and to help out those in need. However, it is not a wrong not to do so, because inaction is not an attack on others (violence).
3. I somewhat disagree with mark about money
Money is a religion when you value it over morality. Money doesn't exist in nature, but there's nothing wrong with possessing money/currency as property, or trading/investing with it, because those actions are not physical attacks (violence). Money itself is not what maintains power advantage and power differential. It is violence and physical attack which does that. Our monopolized modern money system is controlled and controls others by use of the violence of the state, which is what causes all the problems. It would also be physical attack and violence if force is used to prevent people from using money, or to take it away from them, just like taxation.
Money is a religion for most people because they value it over life, freedom, truth, natural law, morals etc. But that religion is also propped up by the physical attacks/violence of the state. Corporations are not great, because they are government creations, and could not exist without the state. They would instead be moral and voluntary businesses that serve the people to get customers. These businesses could not get so big and evil if they were not corporations/if they couldn't take advantage of the violence of the state.
If we are not very clear about how natural law works, and where EXACTLY the line between rights actions are wrong actions are, then things will get convoluted. If the bar is too low, we will allow wrongs to happen and ruin the society of humanity and stunt our evolution, like allowing taxation to occur. If the bar is too high, we'll think that some rights are wrongs, which eliminates choice, freedom, and our self education of natural law.
I believe the bar is at physical attack, which is also physical theft of legitimate property. We have to be vigilant about our understanding of where the line is, and we must defend ourselves and others from anyone who crosses that line, because they do not have the right to physically attack others or physically steal from them.
to specify again, physical attack does not include physical defense. Physical attack is the initiation of the use of physical force again another, with the intention of harming them or stealing from them.
I wanted to clarify about my post about the zeitgeist podcast. I said that not giving away excess food that you cultivated is a right, meaning that it would be wrong for, say, a starving person to take it without your permission, because it is YOUR food which YOU produced, and so it is your property. If the food you own and grow for yourself is actually your property, then you can choose to do whatever you want with it. You can eat it, store/freeze it/can it, give it away, sell it, let it go to waste, use it as mulch, anything. Anything that is not a physical attack against someone else. Only physical attacks/theft are actual wrongs, because it is intentionally causing physical harm to another person. Everything else are your rights, because you are not physically attacking someone. We figure out right with the apophatic method, what are not rights, what are actually wrongs, because rights are unlimited, infinite, and innumerable. Not feeding the poor and starving is a right, because not feeding the poor and starving is not an attack on others. You are not the one causing harm to them by not feeding them. But you can feed them if you wish, because by definition, rights must be optional, and can not be an obligation. You are only obligated NOT to do wrongs, because the nature of actual obligations is that it is possible to always fulfill them every waking (and sleeping) moment of your life. You are obligated to NOT murder. That obligation is achievable, to not murder every moment you are alive. Most people go a lifetime without murdering, and thus fulfill that obligation every day, until they are dead. You can only be obligated to not do something, and can never be obligated to do something. If you were obligated to feed the poor, you would have to be actively doing that every moment that you are alive, which is impossible. You can not be feeding the poor while you are simultaneously feeding yourself. You can't be feeding the poor while you're sleeping, watching tv, going to work, going to church, helping your neighbor with her groceries, etc. Thus, since that obligation is not achievable in perpetuity, then it can not be an obligation in nature. Also, if certain rights were an obligation, that would take away our choice or preference of rights to enact, which would take away our freedom and free will.
Rights can not be obligations, but rights are shoulds. Rights are hierarchical in nature, but they are our freedoms, and we should not be physically attacked for any of them. Nature responds to them, in direct proportion with how right and good the action is. They are freedoms because we are supposed to learn their lessons from nature and from experimentation, trial and error, as opposed to wrongs. When a wrong is committed, physical defense may be used against that person, because you are not supposed to experiment with wrongs, physically attacking others. Natural repercussions and consequences of the psyche and conscious will be most severe against those who enact wrongs, and those who have enacted wrongs. The consequences will be proportional the the amount of wrongs you have done or continue to do. Most people don't do wrongs, at least most of the time, and don't have much to be concerned about. But there is no salvation or exemption from the consequences, whatever they might be, for those who continually commit wrongs, without learning from their consequences, and without ceasing.
The purpose of the hierarchy of rights is to learn to do good, to do better, and to improve and become enlightened. But again, there is no obligation to do any of those things, because all rights are optional and actionable. If you were obligated to improve from one level of rights to another, then there would be no freedom.
Christianity finds freedom in salvation, grace, and forgiveness, because to them, ever other action, thought, or word is a sin. Where in reality, freedom is found in all your rights, and slavery is found only in physical attack, and where physical attack is allowed and rampant.