Partial Property Ownership
Anarcho-Capitalists generally consider partial transfers of property rights to be legitimate. For example:
- Rental Agreements: A property owner grants limited usage rights, but not full rights, to his legitimate property that he has justly created or acquired, and maintained.
- A standard employment agreement, whereby one party brings a capital structure, and another brings their labor, and as such they agree that the product of the labor and capital is transferred to the capitalist, and the laborer is compensated with money or whatever else is defined according to the terms of their agreement.
- Loans, whereby the bank retains ownership of the house until the contract has been fulfilled (i.e. paid off).
- Contractual arrangements of various sorts.
- Open source licenses, which require all derivatives to also adhere to the terms of agreement, which may include prohibition of sale of derivatives, requirements for derivatives to be open source, demanding all derivatives are subject to a particular license agreement, or other similar conditions.
Why are all the above considered legitimate, but magically STOP the instant something "conceptual" is under consideration. Why can't a person partially license the use of any form of "idea wealth," but refuse to transfer full license of the wealth itself?
Almost every pro-physical-property argument holds true - and only when intellectual property is mentioned do these arbitrary distinctions come into play.