i dont know what the exact motivation for this clause was. but if you secure something you are attempting to keep someone else from using it, or perhaps in the case of securing writings and discoveries, securing or controlling the experience of the writing or the discovery.

by motivation, i mean, did the constitution writers believe that authorship and eureka! were somehow a type of esoteric god-granted gift and ownable in a sense slightly different than solid goods…lumber, copper, hats, etc.????

if they did why did the fell that way and not say that authorship could be nothing more than properly acknowledged but not an ownable thing.

Sigh.

1. You have the right to prevent him from altering the integrity or momentum of your soil. It does not imply that you own whatever it is he uses to interfere with your soil.

2. If I ever did bother trying to define English, it would be an extremely complex definition laid out in terms of the fundamental symbols, sounds, and grammar of the language.

3. Apparently placing things in bold doesn’t have any affect on you. You seem to miss the fact that “abandon these terms completely” and “define these terms” are contradictory statements.

4. What else is there to explain about your thermo point? I clearly identified why the concept “heat energy” doesn’t make sense and explained why the same problems don’t apply to the concept of “property”. Maybe here is where you say:
“My God you’re right. I didn’t think about that. I’ll spend more time considering the topic and maybe come back at you with a different example if I can find one.”

5. Just about all groups that use the word “property” are generally refering to the concept of how society attempts to solve the problem of the allocation of scarce resources. I am not trying to “craft” a definition that “fits” everyday usage, I am investigating the overall concept.
It may turn out that the “everyday usage” is completely inaccurate. Maybe when people believe they “own” tangible objects, they are really “owning” space-time coordinates or patterns or actions or some form of energy or … who knows. The point is to answer questions like, “What does this concept really mean?” and “What is specifically going on?”

“Either you have completely misunderstood my arguments or you are hitting me with a major strawman here. Either way, I’d prefer to let you work out why I don’t need to respond to this.”

No, I enclose evidence below.

Jay says: “I gave you my definition of “property” somewhere below. I’ll even repeat it for you again: An entity is the property of an individual if that individual has the right to exclude other individuals from altering the integrity or momentum of it.

Me: “if I can stop my neighbour from using the trumpet the way he wants to because it is vibrating the molecules in my soil, then according to your definition I must be the owner of the trumpet.”

My statement is as I see it true. If it is out of context, please say how. But saying you don’t need to respond is to say that you don’t need to elaborate how your patronizing “repeat” of your definition of property is, well….. it turns out that you don’t, actually now push comes to shove, want to defend it. I don’t mind, but say so if this is the case.

“Do you agree with me that the language called “English” exists and that ” Therefore there must be a definition for this phenomenon”?”

I don’t actually think this of course. What is this definition of English? Note that I’m going to apply it to extremely awkward scenarios to see how it works, so you might just want to concede that we don’t bother “defining” English, we just use it.

“Oops!”

This is not some big slip Jay old chum. First define property etc. using more fundamental words, then see what better concepts fall out of these definitions – we can’t invent better concepts whilst still using the old ones, so this is a stepping stone. You thinking this is some big slip shows that you don’t (and in fact can’t) understand my point.

I can’t be bothered explaining my thermo point again.

“Jay – you think because we use it in everyday life, it must have a definition in more fundamental terms that remains consistent with its everyday usage.”

Strawman? You want to find a definition of property that still fits “everyday usage” yet is defined down to the fundamentals eg. using momentum. Now, by everyday I mean on this site, not normal person usage, so I guess that was confusing. But if this is a strawman, there must be “everyday” usages of the word “property” that you agree are not covered by your theory. What are they? Or do you accept my statement if I say everyday actually means usage by libertarians?

if I can stop my neighbour from using the trumpet the way he wants to because it is vibrating the molecules in my soil, then according to your definition I must be the owner of the trumpet.

Either you have completely misunderstood my arguments or you are hitting me with a major strawman here. Either way, I’d prefer to let you work out why I don’t need to respond to this.

Do you agree with me that the language called “English” exists and that ” Therefore there must be a definition for this phenomenon”?

Yes.

I’m saying we should abandon the general use of the words “property” and “own” and “homestead” altogether. The problem is not to find definitions of these (I don’t think they exist beyond a good approximation) but to create new concepts altogether.

That’s funny, I could have sworn you said: “We need to try to find new words which are more fundamental to define these three concepts and a new theory based on these.”
Oops!

I specifically used the phrase “heat energy” and said “there is NO SUCH THING as heat energy”.

Damn. I have to give a proper response to this one. I was trying to avoid effort.

I thought you were being clever with the “heat” analogy. It turns out you were specifically refering to the words “heat energy”. I’m sorry to tell you that, although you are right that “heat energy” does not exist, you are wrong to draw a comparison with “property”. I’ll try to explain.

“Heat energy” is two words implying that “heat” is a form of energy. That is an assumption right there that should never have been made. “Heat energy” does not exist purely because that combination of concepts is nonsensical in the context of what is really going on.

However…
“Property” is one word.
“Homestead” is one word.
“Owns” is one word.

I guess I don’t have to explain that it’s impossible to form a nonsensical combination of words when there is only one word.

If it makes you feel better, I have already identified a few property concepts that make no sense in the same way that “heat energy” makes no sense.
“Property border” does not actually exist. This is equivalent to the “heat energy” analogy that you have drawn because incompatible words are being strung together.

So your objection that heat exists (in the common usage) and the definition is wrong is nonsensical.

Yawn … another strawman.
When did I ever say “heat exists in the common usage?”
I said “heat exists”. Take this to mean, “the phenomenon of heat exists”. It’s irrelevant what the common usage is. Once you identify that something exists, only then do you go and try to define it. And you make no assumptions and you certainly don’t try to make the definition fit “the common usage”.

There is nothing wrong with using the phrase “dissipate heat” like this, it is useful and I would use it myself.

“Dissipate heat” – Another combination of incompatible concepts.

Jay – you think because we use it in everyday life, it must have a definition in more fundamental terms that remains consistent with its everyday usage.

I love how you snuck in, “that remains consistent with its everyday usage”.
I guess it’s fitting that you ended your funny little rant with an enormous strawman.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissipate

1. To drive away; disperse.
2. To attenuate to or almost to the point of disappearing: The wind finally dissipated the smoke. See Synonyms at scatter.
3. a. To spend or expend intemperately or wastefully; squander.
b. To use up, especially recklessly; exhaust: dissipated their energy. See Synonyms at waste.
4. To cause to lose (energy, such as heat) irreversibly

Now type “dissipate heat” into google and see how often it is used – it is used in everyday parlance all the time.

Let’s be clear – there is NO SUCH THING as “heat energy”, so saying “To cause to lose (energy, such as heat)” makes sense in everyday parlance, but not in thermodynamics parlance, where you cannot lose “heat” as heat is a transfer of energy, a process, not energy itself.

There is nothing wrong with using the phrase “dissipate heat” like this, it is useful and I would use it myself.

There IS a problem though with learning thermodynamics and then, when the Otto cycle is explained, asking “where is the heat” or something. It isn’t that it is too hard to answer – it is that is makes no sense, because the “heat” as this person means simply does not exist.

My hypothesis is that, it the most fundamental level, it makes no sense to ask what “property” is. Really, it exists only at the everyday life level of abstraction and it disappears sufficiently lower down.

Jay – you think because we use it in everyday life, it must have a definition in more fundamental terms that remains consistent with its everyday usage. I think you are just wrong.

“In response to your comments regarding “heat”, I agree with the general analogy to “property” but I disagree with the way you’re framing it. You start your reasoning with the assumption that the popular definition of “heat” is the definition of heat. And based on that definition, it doesn’t exist. Instead I start my reasoning with the assumption that the phenomenon called “heat” exists, but that the popular definition is incorrect. Hence why I can say that it is actually you that has things backwards.”

And Jay you have missed the crucial fundamental step in my reference to thermodynamics. I specifically used the phrase “heat energy” and said “there is NO SUCH THING as heat energy”. Heat DOES exist in thermodynamics – it is a transfer of energy that is not work. that is a perfectly good definition of heat. But “heat energy” does not exist.

I’m saying people in everyday life are free to use the phrase “heat energy” and to imagine a radiator contains lots of “heat energy” and it transfers this “heat energy” to the room. That is a good model that works in everyday life – and the earliest engines were based on the concept of something called “heat” flowing around. But “heat” in this sense meant “heat energy” – but the term “heat” technically is not a thing, that flows, but it is the description of a transfer of energy, one that is not work.

The difference here is crucial – the everyday, and pre-statistical mechanics, usage was that “heat” was a _thing_. It is not that in thermodynamics though, it is a _process_.

So you saying the everyday definition is wrong only _seems_ to make sense, it is based on a coincidence, that thermodynamics has reused the word heat to mean a process and not a thing.

Let’s say in thermodynamics, non-work and work were the two modes of transfer of energy and the word “heat” never appeared, ever. This wouldn’t change the fact that people used the word pre-statistical mechanics as a thing that is flowing and that people do so now would it? So your objection that heat exists (in the common usage) and the definition is wrong is nonsensical. It doesn’t exist – that is the whole point. Pretending it does is more useful in everyday life than adopting the language of thermodynamics – a totally different level of abstraction.

Kid: I see what Jay means that you simultaneously agree and disagree. I think I comprehend your argument now better. You are claiming that our approach is pointless and we should try a different one instead. But I already replied to you a couple of months ago. Yes, it is possible to try a completely new approach. You are free to attempt it and I was kind of secretly hoping that one of the IP proponents will abandon the repetitive fallacies and do exactly this.

However, you forget that the first step of my approach is falsificationistic one. There are certain fundamental things which I was able to refute earlier on. Any theory would need to avoid those pitfalls too. I think the crucial is the realisation that the physical world already covers 100% of everything in a non-overlapping manner, a feature which I would label auto-exclusion. What I mean by this is that for example, two atoms simultaneously located at two different locations are not the same atom. Then there are some minor realisations, like the non-physical world does not exist outside of human minds, the inability to modify the non-physical and so on. This all leads me to the conclusion that using approaches significantly different from the “physicalist” one is less likely to produce useful results.

But no – I’m saying we should abandon the general use of the words “property” and “own” and “homestead” altogether. The problem is not to find definitions of these (I don’t think they exist beyond a good approximation) but to create new concepts altogether.

Well lets leave the insults aside and stick to the point – and there was context to the original place this was written.

“We need to try to find new words which are more fundamental to define these three concepts and a new theory based on these.”

“My response to your most recent comment is: What do you think I’ve been trying to do all this time?”

Now you’re saying you have been doing this all along? You’re kidding right? I present below your original response to my spectacularly bad piece of writing:

Jay: ““You seem utterly unable to confront the fact that this is another possible avenue of thought and take “homestead” and “property” and “property rights violation” as sacrosanct even though we don’t have general defintions for them and rely on the amrket to provide this.”

I gave you my definition of “property” somewhere below. I’ll even repeat it for you again: An entity is the property of an individual if that individual has the right to exclude other individuals from altering the integrity or momentum of it. Now I have already said (twice) that it IS in fact possible to redefine “property” in a manner which makes “ownership” of the intangible non-absurd. However I tried to point out that this would make “ownership” of the tangible absurd. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Maybe it will help if I try and break it down for you.”

Hmm, not really sure you were with me then. Well, “Maybe it will help if I try and break it down for you” also – in my trumpet example, if I can stop my neighbour from using the trumpet the way he wants to because it is vibrating the molecules in my soil, then according to your definition I must be the owner of the trumpet. The trumpet has two owners? I own everything that makes any sound and causes vibration in my soil? Well, your absolute matter of fact concrete competely obvious I must be a moron for not agreeing with you definitions aren’t really making a great deal of sense to me.

“But surely you can see that I’m always trying to break everything down into fundamental components with the aim of specifically defining “property”. Am I not actively doing exactly what you are proposing?”

Yes but my point (maybe if you’d read my spectacularly bad piece of writing you’d know this) is that trying to define property is like trying to define “heat energy” when talking about the the Otto Cycle – ie. it doesn’t exist.

“Let me put it this way. Do you agree with me if I phrase things in the following way?:
The phenomenon called “property” exists. Therefore there must be a definition for this phenomenon.”

No.

Do you agree with me that the language called “English” exists and that ” Therefore there must be a definition for this phenomenon”?

Another possibility is to abandon the use of “homestead” and “property” and “property rights violation” as the starting points and come up with new terms to describe how we interact which are more abstract and better suit the world of “patterns of ink” on bits of paper as well as tangible stuff. You seem utterly unable to confront the fact that this is another possible avenue of thought and take “homestead” and “property” and “property rights violation” as sacrosanct even though we don’t have general defintions for them and rely on the amrket to provide this.

This is a spectacularly bad piece of writing if what you really meant to say was:

We need to try to find new words which are more fundamental to define these three concepts and a new theory based on these.

Surely you can see that these mean two different things.

My response to your most recent comment is: What do you think I’ve been trying to do all this time?

But surely you can see that I’m always trying to break everything down into fundamental components with the aim of specifically defining “property”.
Am I not actively doing exactly what you are proposing?

In response to your comments regarding “heat”, I agree with the general analogy to “property” but I disagree with the way you’re framing it.
You start your reasoning with the assumption that the popular definition of “heat” is the definition of heat. And based on that definition, it doesn’t exist.
Instead I start my reasoning with the assumption that the phenomenon called “heat” exists, but that the popular definition is incorrect.
Hence why I can say that it is actually you that has things backwards.

Kid Salami, are you aware that you have a very peculiar way of simultaneously both agreeing and disagreeing with me? If yes, is it deliberate? It just seems like you pretty much agree with me on just about everything, but you badly want to argue so you frame things and word things in an opposite way to how I would.

Let me put it this way. Do you agree with me if I phrase things in the following way?:
The phenomenon called “property” exists. Therefore there must be a definition for this phenomenon.

Doubts – no, none whatsoever – and I submit as conclusive proof about 25 threads on this site alone with thousands of comments without resolving some very basic issues.

“if it exists, it can be defined”? No, you have it backwards – in fact, until we have a definition, the abstract notion of “property” cannot be said exist. Yes, the items which you want to designate as being “owned” by people exist fo course, but a general definition of property does not exist, regardless of how undeniably useful it is in everyday life to pretend otherwise.

You know physics right? Think about how people use the word “heat” and “temperature” in everyday life – it works just fine. Only a small subset of society need to worry about the fact that “heat” does NOT exist in the sense people think, that something called “heat energy” is not flowing from the radiatior to the air but that in fact the molecules of the air are just being excited by the vibration of the molecules which are at a higher temperature, and that “temperature” is really just kinetic energy. That is, there is NO SUCH THING as heat energy, despite many people finding situations every day where it is useful to pretend otherwise.

It serves no purpose to corrupt everyday language with the vocabulary and definitions of thermodynamics, “heat energy” works just fine at the everyday level of abstraction. But taking these concepts into a discussion about how the Otto cycle works or what reversibility is fatal.

The EXACT same problem is going on here in these IP discussions. The currently undefined concepts of “Property”, “property violation” and “own” are being used in the analysis of situations to which they are spectaculrly badly suited, and you get the same effect as people using “heat” in the two different ways I described. We need to try to find new words which are more fundamental to define these three concepts and a new theory based on these.

I can only repeat what about 2 months ago:

“Maybe. Another possibility is to abandon the use of “homestead” and “property” and “property rights violation” as the starting points and come up with new terms to describe how we interact which are more abstract and better suit the world of “patterns of ink” on bits of paper as well as tangible stuff. You seem utterly unable to confront the fact that this is another possible avenue of thought and take “homestead” and “property” and “property rights violation” as sacrosanct even though we don’t have general defintions for them and rely on the amrket to provide this. This makes no sense to me at all.”

I hope most of your questions/comments were answered in my above post to Peter. I hope you approve of the direction my thinking has been going in. And before you say anything, yes, I have changed my mind on the “trespassing on land” issue. Now I’m not sure anymore.

I disagree that “property” cannot be defined. Surely you have some doubts in your mind over the accuracy of your statement that “there is not and can’t be a suitable definition of “property””. My general belief is that if it exists, it can be defined. (For dramatic effect, you might want to pretend I said that just like Anold Swarzenegger in Predator when he says “If it bleeds, we can kill it”)

With regards to:

deciding who can do what with the trumpet and the garden here is a research project, not something that is just obvious form the “boundaries”.

Whoever said identifying property violations was easy? Neither Peter nor myself have ever said that every situation should be “obvious”.
One of the reasons for trying to identify the specific definition of “property” is to make situations like this easier to analyse.
We will never have complete information about the world we live in and so obviously there will always exist scenarios which are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to analyse.

My recent line of thinking has been about “space”. Fencing off an area declares your intent to occupy that area with your property at some future point in time. Anyone who places their property in that area is therefore putting it on a direct collision course with your property. So reserving “space” for your use is not the “homesteading of space” as some people mistakenly believe, but instead is a method of indicating to others what your future actions will be. ie, people know that propelling their property into that space may very well result in a property rights violation.
Before you point out that this line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that shooting people on your land is actually those people violating your property rights in your bullets, one has to consider the intent of the shooter. If the shooter was going to shoot bullets in that direction anyway (in the absence of the trespasser) then this is the case. However, if the shooter only shoots because the trespasser is there, then the shooter is the one committing the violation. (Actually both people are committing property rights violations in this case)

I engaged in the above reasoning because I think it shows that “intended future actions” and “making that intent known” must also be key components of a precise definition of property rights.

The act of homesteading itself is interrelated with “intended future actions”. You homestead an object because you intend to perform a future action which in some way alters the momentum of that object.
So one aspect of homesteading an object involves the act of making it known to others that in some future point in time you intend to alter the momentum of (or alter the momentum of components of) that object in a particular way.

But “making your intentions known” is still not enough. You actually need to do something with the object in question. I can’t declare to the world that I intend to greatly change the landscape of the moon and therefore I “own” the moon. I have to actually travel there and change it.

I can’t quite put my finger on how it all works yet, but I think this reasoning is on the right track.

I do think “altering momentum” or “altering velocity” or “causing an acceleration” is spot on. I am just having difficulty with the additional conditions. And I think “making future intended actions known to others” is one of those conditions.

I don’t think “boundary invasion” enters the picture anywhere. I think it’s incorrect to consider this an aspect of property theory. I think it only comes up because most property violations can be (incorrectly) generalised to fit into this category.

So this is how I see things:
Person A declares his intention to alter the momentum of object X at some point in the future.
And let’s say that the other conditions for homesteading X (whatever they may be) have been satisfied.
We can now say that A owns X.
Person B performs an action.
This action leads to a (natural) chain of events that in some way alters the momentum of X after a certain amount of time goes by. (there is always a time lag)
If this momentum alteration of X interferes with A’s future intended momentum alterations of X, then a property rights violation has occurred.

Whether the momentum of X is altered in 2 seconds or 2 decades is irrelevant. Adding the condition “border invasion” does not help the situation at all. All it does is allow B to perform actions which interfere with X.

I can see how “A’s future intended momentum alterations of X” might be a bit difficult to ascertain in many circumstances, but isn’t that precisely what is going on?

I’m not convinced about the “relevant technological unit” because you can always magnify the effect to cross the “relevant technological unit” of another physical object.

On closer consideration of this statement, I realise that I don’t really see how. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your meaning here. Can you please explain and elaborate on this further?

“The issue is that any action is detectable somehow, if you have tools designed to react to it. I can take a scope and detect that a guy sitting on his property kilometers away is having a barbeque. Does that mean his bbq violates my property rights? I can also detect that the price of gold is changing because http://www.goldprice.org is a dynamic website. Does that mean that buying gold violates my property rights, because it is flips some transistors in my computer’s memory?”

I hate to intrude on this love-in, or spoil Jay’s joy that the conversation has moved towards something he finds challenging with someone of his intellectual equal, but this is EXACTLY what I was saying on the thread a couple of weeks ago when you both spent posts and posts telling me what moron I was and how confused about everything I am.

I said:

“How do we answer the question “does the owner have the right to prevent others from using his property in a specific way”? You basically define “owning” object A as “having the right to stop people from doing stuff to it that alters its integrity”, right? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, this is a guess as to what you mean.

And we agree that you have the right to stop me sitting on or chopping up the chair or whatever if you “own” the chair.

But what if I say: “you can’t play your trumpet in your house because I’ve been growing turnips in my garden for years – way before you came along – and this year they didn’t grow because of your trumpet playing”

The question is: “do have the right to prevent [you from using your] property [the trumpet] in a specific way”?

This question cannot be answered in the simple way you suggest – it is not just about simple boundaries but is more complicated. Probably this is total nonsense. But maybe the sound waves actually do something to the nutrients in the soil. The point is, deciding who can do what with the trumpet and the garden here is a research project, not something that is just obvious form the “boundaries”.

“I believe that a lot of the confusion over property rights stems from definitions of property that are too vague.”

I disagree – I think the confusion is because there is not and can’t be a suitable definition of “property”. To quote something I heard recently, we can’t define “English” (the language) – but we don’t have to define it, we just use it. Imagine how a thread in Spanish debating exactly what “English” is would go – about reminds me of some of these threads about property and IP. It is the same with property – we need a basic definition of course, but at the margins we have to wing it. You want a single sentence to cover everything – it doesn’t (and need not) exist.

“The one thing that all property rights violations have in common is that a change in momentum has occurred. ie, a purposeful action has resulted in somebody else’s property (or component parts of it) to have moved from it’s natural trajectory.”

“You are discussing the other side of the coin, “intent”. I agree it is a very tricky subject and not one that I intend to explore in that much depth. My area is physics, not psychology.”

So you are saying that a threat (ie. holding a gun to someone’s head with intent to use) cannot in itself be a called a property rights violation, only the physical violation later is the violation. The threat, because it doesn’t alter the momentum of B, we must call an act of “aggression” instead, something to which you are entitled to respond with a pr violation, is that fair?

OK, not exactly the way I see things but makes sense. The problem is that this is supremely useless as a theory – as Peter points out, there are many instances of this occurring without it being a property violation. This _might_ be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. So if we just DEFINE a pr violation as:

“altering momentum of stuff you don’t own. Except for when this is ok.”

and everything else as not a pr violation, we get nowhere, it is a tautology.

I think I see what you’re saying. Causality extends to infinity.
Person X performs an action.
A causal chain-reaction occurs.
At some future point in time, person Y’s property is interfered with.

This is actually a problem even with the inclusion of “boundary invasion” because nothing happens instantaneously. There is always a time-lag between cause and effect.

I’m actually glad the discussion has gone in this direction. I’ve been thinking about something very closely related to this and you’ve helped me clarify a few things.

I’m kind of in a rush to go somewhere at the moment so I don’t have time to give a proper response right now. I’ll try to find some time to explain my reasoning later. (might not be for a day or two … work is kind of on top of me at the moment)

I think I almost got my point through. My argument is not that we must include the boundary violation as a condition, rather than the absence of it causes problems. It could also mean that the whole approach is invalid and we need to start from scratch.

I’m not convinced about the “relevant technological unit” because you can always magnify the effect to cross the “relevant technological unit” of another physical object. That is how measurement tools usually work anyway. You might need to restrict the “relevant technological unit” to the first object the causality hits that is owned. But that is also kind of vague.

Peter wrote:

Does that mean his bbq violates my property rights?

If the act of having a bbq affects your property in a manner which interferes with the specific momentum changes you intend to perform to the property, then yes.
For example, if you’re holding a flower-smelling convention next door, then the odors from the BBQ will interfere with it. If we assume you planned your event first, then the holding of a BBQ next door is a property rights violation.
Another example is if you’re running heat-sensitive scientific experiments nearby and the heat from the BBQ will interfere with them. Of course this second example probably assumes that you were running these experiments well before your neighbor moved in. (I admit it’s a tricky situation)

Does that mean that buying gold violates my property rights, because it is flips some transistors in my computer’s memory?

If the purpose of your property is to “measure”, then the act of buying gold occurs in accordance with the intended use of your property rather than interfere with it.

All it seems to do is rule out some actions which definitely are violations

What I meant to say was:
“All it seems to do is allow people to perform actions which definitely are property violations”

Hopefully you get my meaning.

Adding the condition “boundary invasion” does not solve the problem you are describing. All it seems to do is rule out some actions which definitely are violations. (Also, I still stand by my earlier remark that if you closely examine the specific process of collisions and interactions, then “boundary invasion” really doesn’t make any sense).

We have discussed the problem you are describing before – that tiny changes are not violations and that there must be a cut-off point somewhere. But how do we decide what is acceptable and unacceptable? My original thought was that it is arbitrary, but upon further thought (prompted by Stephan’s advice) I came to the conclusion that it probably isn’t.
I’m inclined to agree with Stephan that Rothbard’s “relevant technological unit” will play a key a role. Very tiny changes may or may not be property rights violations depending on whether the change interferes with the owner’s intended use of the property.

Basically, I think “invasion of boundaries” and “change in integrity” are both uneccessary and can be replaced by the more accurate “change in momentum”. You are correct that this alone cannot define property. However when we combine “change in momentum” with Rothbard’s “relevant technological unit” I think we are very close to a more precise definition of property.

(On a side note, I’m still toying with the possiblity of changing the word “momentum” to something in terms of “velocity”, “trajectory”, “acceleration” or “reference frames”. Definitely more thought is needed on the topic)