 All property is first created when a person mixes their labour with nature. This is called the Lockean proviso as it originates with the English philosopher John Locke, the father of classical liberalism, but these days is more commonly referred to as the homestead principle. To put it into practice, when you cut down a tree with your own tools, the tree then belongs to you, the acting individual who has rightful ownership over the means, the means being the tools, and the ends of the labour, that being the tree. You can then turn the tree into planks, again using your own tools and labour, or you can make a deal with another individual who has the tools required in order to create the planks. The deal could be that you borrow or rent their tools at an agreed upon rate of exchange, the obvious means of exchange being money, or that you pay for the person's tool as well as their labour in order to receive the planks. The other individual does not have rightful claim of property over the planks because they mixed their labour with the tree, because the tree was already rightfully owned by you, and you and the other person agreed an exchange of other goods to purchase their labour services from them. After doing this for long enough, you can have enough planks to build yourself a house. Just as before, you can take the means yourself, those being the planks and your labour, in order to build the house yourself. But that's a very time and labour consuming process. If you want to speed up the process, then you can yet again make a deal and pay for the tools and services of others in order to help. You now have yourself a homestead, congratulations. Along this route, you either created property by mixing your labour with an untouched natural resource as we discerned before, or you engaged in contract with other individuals to receive their labour in exchange for a good or service that they value more highly than the labour which they are providing you with. To use a different perspective, if you are the person who built the roof of the house, you are not entitled to that roof or any of the house in question despite putting your labour into it. Your labour is yours, your tools might be, but the materials like the wood and tiles that you install onto the roof are not yours. You were either supplied them by the house owner to do this job, or you purchased them from a supplier, making you the owner of them, until you included the materials in the contract with the house owner as part of the exchange. The only thing you own absent of natural resources in this process is your labour, in essence your body. You are entitled to all that your labour creates that does not interfere with another individual's property or conflict with any contracts that you have agreed upon. I can pick a flower which emerged by nature and it is rightfully mine, but if I was to pick one that was originally planted by another individual, it is their property and I cannot rightfully own it without their permission. Permission can be created via a contract which says I will pick another person's flowers in return for a wage. Firstly, I will only ever agree to a wage that I desire greater than the effort I put in, and the employer will only pay me a wage lower than the total return they can get from a picked flower only when it is sold successfully on the market. If I do not like this arrangement, I am not entitled to the full return just because I desire it. If I desire the full return, I don't have the grounds to violate their property rights, which is their labour mixed with nature. I have to go and create my own property, take the time to plant flowers, wait for them to bloom, then sell them at the market myself. This presents enormous risk. My time is limited and if I put it into the planting, waiting and selling of flowers myself, I am sacrificing that time against the alternatives and I have no guarantee that the flowers will bloom or if they do, that I can make a return at market. Any of the time taken in these actions of speculation could have been put into just supplying my labour for a wage without any of these risks and receive a reduced return from my labour precisely because I am sacrificing that portion of return for immediate remuneration rather than remuneration in the future. As I get paid, whether or not the flower is sold and I do not have to undertake the investment of finding land, buying seeds, planting them and waiting for profit, what you create when you do undertake in this process is create capital, which is goods created for the purpose of producing other goods. I can either go out to create my own capital in order to receive the full benefit of it or I can rent out my labour into somebody else's pre-existing capital in an exchange where I forego the risk as well as most of the reward. Let's take it back to our newly built house. A lot of investment of property, time and labour went into building that house which inherently makes it a scarce good, scarcity being the concept that there will always be less in existence than what the total desire of all individuals is. The total wants of people amounts to more than there actually is. There will be more people who want houses than there are people who will make the investments required to build one. So you don't receive any financial reward while you are living in this house because you are instead receiving its use value when you occupy it. You know first hand the value of occupying a house and if somebody values something they will be willing to pay for it in the same way that you paid for this house either with entirely your own efforts or by paying for the effort of others. So you undertake the whole process again, you cut down a tree or you pay for one already cut down, you turn it into planks or pay for it to be done then you build the house or pay for it to be built. Just as before this is an enormous investment of the three factors of production capital labour and time. This time around you decide that rather than receiving the use value of the house you want to receive its exchange value by exchanging it with somebody else who wishes to receive its use value by occupying it themselves. Their occupation does not entitle them to the house. The house is rightfully your property through the process of creation or exchange of pre-existing property. Just as the builder installing the roof does not own the roof the occupier painting the wall does not entitle them to the wall because they are not mixing their labour with nature they are mixing their labour with pre-existing property at the permission of the owner. Your natural rights in the lucky and moral framework are life, liberty and property not life, liberty, property, house or anything like that. The house is property and the property is private. The definition of private property is that it can be exchanged or excluded in its use at the owner's discretion. The owner can include you in the occupancy of their house with an agreed upon contract of exchange and can exclude you if you do not have a contract or break one that you entered into. So if you agree to occupy somebody's property for money they have the right to evict you if you stop and they choose to do so. If you stop there will most likely be another person who would be willing to exchange their property for occupying property their money which they value less compared to the house they can occupy for it. In reality it's not always as cut and dry as this but going into value scales and terms of exchange is a bit beyond the scope of this video. This whole thesis stands to reason that creating, holding and exchanging private property is an inherent natural and inalienable right within every individual as a self-owner capable of independent action. Quite frankly in order to dispute the claim you have to dispute that humans own themselves and if you dispute that claim it leaves room for the claim that humans can own other humans regardless if it's sugar coated with utilitarian nice sounding terms such as for the greater good the public good or the good of society. There is no such thing as the good of society if it rests on denying individual self ownership because to deny that idea is a claim of slavery. If being 100% owned by somebody else is slavery at what point does it stop being slavery? 50%? 20%? Of course the answer's obviously zero. Anything else is an infringement on your other natural right of liberty. But there are some detracting thoughts to consider and dispute. The first is that private property is not a natural right and therefore not upheld by natural law but that it should however be allowed by an authority on a conditional basis. The other one which is very unfortunately finding increasing popularity among an increasingly socialist youth in the west is that private property is inherently unjust and that the only rightfully excludable property is determined by use defined as personal property. I've already addressed the first point if you deny the right of private property on the grounds that it is conditional you say that it is in fact beneficial to society for individuals to be able to hold private property but that it can be revoked under such vague ideas as when it suits society, the nation, the people, the race or any other synonym for the collective. This is a ridiculous notion because it completely glosses over what these collectors literally are which is a congregation of individuals. You cannot possibly claim that the individual doesn't have a right to their own person, their own labor and their own property and that all of these belong to the collective because there is no rights except for individual rights. There is no society without individuals just as there are no leaves without a tree. You can't cut down a tree whilst claiming it's for the good of its own leaves. This conditional notion is what western society has unfortunately adopted through the mental gymnastics of notions like the social contract. An agreement you apparently made by being born which is just utter nonsense. It's the notion that justifies taxation in these people's minds as serving the greater good of society by enforcing violence upon that very society. I can tell you for a fact I wouldn't be very happy to be mugged if the mugger said no no don't worry this is for the good of society because any removal of property without explicit consent is theft and what the mainstream pundit who believes in this method fails to realise is that the ultimate end of this train of thought is the fascist doctrine of property. Fascism allows private property to be held and exchanged right up until the moment when the authority no longer approves of it and then it is stolen with no hesitation under the guise of for the nation or for the white race. The most hilarious part is that when the Nazi party sent in the German labor front which was their state-owned labor union into factories to throw out their owners who were German people and then appropriate them for the German people they called this process privatisation. So if you ever hear someone say the Nazi's privatised industry be sure to tell them how unbelievably wrong they are. Now the concept of use justifying property is the mantra of all socialist theories on property and is why Prudon gave his completely paradoxical quote property is theft. If property doesn't exist then it can't be stolen. Anyway this is the justification of why socialists believe they shouldn't need to pay rent and it should surprise absolutely nobody that it's a ridiculous argument. It claims that any property you use is rightfully yours. It doesn't matter who made the car you have a fundamental right to the car just because you use it. They apply this to the means of production whereas before I showed that you don't rightfully own a flower you picked if someone else planted it under this idea you in fact would. So not only is there no incentive whatsoever to create capital which before was the reward which came with overcoming the risk of it, now any already existing capital is inherently the right of the worker who uses it. Somebody took the time to mix their bodies labour with nature to create a hammer but doesn't use the hammer themselves. Sorry mate bad luck hammer is mine now because my ability to swing it somehow entitles me to own it. And to the person who invested all the factors in creating a house which they do not live in tough shit it's mine now because I want it and you don't use it. This illustrates why without the right of private property there are no rights at all. If you do not completely own your labour and therefore the property which emerges when you mix it with unused natural resources then you do not own yourself and if you do not own yourself then you do not have any rights as a human. Socialists fill this void of rights with a bunch of things that they love to call rights but have no natural or a prior right justification. Workers rights, right to work, right to housing, right to healthcare, right to education, right to electricity, no. These things are privileges. There are no such thing as positive rights because they cannot exist unless you claim a right over another person's body, their labour and their property. Nobody has any such right. Your rights are just as natural and inalienable as mine. They are not subject to arbitrary measures and comforts and there is no such thing as personal property. Everything that is rightfully owned is owned via the homestead principle and all of which can be rightfully excluded in its use or exchanged only by the rightful owner. Anything else is theft or coercion. The factory owner owns the factory and the tools. You own your body and your labour. You sell your labour to the owner by using their property to create more property which is also rightfully theirs. In return you receive a wage which you have no fundamental right to but is rightfully yours upon receipt via the terms of the contract. So shut up and pay your rent. Take it easy.