This is a bit of a play on "The Non Aggression Principle." I've noticed that (particularly when arguing against IP) /r/AnCaps tend to assert several components or standards of property. Perhaps most commonly, I've heard "property must be physical" or "it's only aggression, if one takes away."

The Tangible Property Axiom:

Creating a tangible property axiom would be a great exercise, and perhaps promote clarity of the tangible-property position. This principle/axiom doesn't have to justify itself only describe itself. Specifically, describing either it's values or standards.

Ideally, this should include:

• Constructive Standards: Some constructive standards for ownership (i.e. homesteading, trade), or how something becomes property.
• Violation Standards: Standards for violation (i.e. property must be taken?)
• Qualifiers: Any necessary qualifiers for ownership (i.e. tangible, scarce, rivalrous, atoms, etc)
• (propose more 'sections' below)

edit:

I was going to attempt to write an ELI-5 style article on this, using content from this thread, but I'm not sure if that's possible. Instead I'm going to make a compilation of some of the comments here and add that to my wiki/blog (please include a note giving permission to mirror your comment.)

Also, I think it would be worthwhile to consider (for the next week(s) or so) how you might write an ELI5 version - seeing as most of the replies I've gotten so far are rather complex.

Disclaimer: This is NOT a debate thread.

For supporters of IP and those who don't think there is an objective standard for property, please try to keep this thread focused. This isn't a debate thread, this is a definition thread, it's a thread for understanding and defining the particular position.

Perhaps to quell your debate tendencies, consider statements here to be equivalent to "I like chocolate" - they're allowed to like or dislike whatever they please, even "property must be pink."