Challenging Capitalist Property Acquisition

I am not disagreeing at all that property rights have existed throughout history. I am arguing that private property rights cannot be justified through Lockean homesteading

Judging from this...

Additionally, this method of property acquisition is completely ahistorical.

You are arguing that property rights based on a Lockean homesteading perspective are ahistorical. I would definitely disagree with that assumption. Locke wasn't conjuring some completely abstract norm, he was capturing a very general rule-of-thumb that people everywhere seem to respect.

I work with traditional hunter-gatherers, and pastoralists in Africa and can give several examples.

1) Honey is an extremely valuable natural resource; however, hives are difficult to find. If a hunter completely pillages the hive by removing the brood comb, the remaining bees will rebuild the hive in another location. The hunter would greatly prefer to take just enough that the bees will stay so he can return to harvest after they have resupplied in a few months. The tragedy of the commons rears its head in this case, because it is likely that someone else will discover the patch, in which case you should take everything now and be happy. However, if you cut the hole and leave a rock in the tree to access the hive, others respect that as your property. This makes things better for everyone even though it leads to an issue of "haves" and "have nots" with those good at finding trees claiming the majority and working them in perpetuity.

2) Ownership of a kill is handled in different ways in different populations, but the rights typically go to the large-game hunter who makes the kill (one exception is the bushman practice of giving right to whoever made the arrow). A big deal is often made of how in many instances (though certainly not all), the meat is distributed in an egalitarian manner, but it is noteworthy that people are very attentive to who has rights and make payment in the form of deference and political karma.

3) Cattle-herders need to carefully optimize grazing in order to maximally feed their stock while minimizing the risk of overgrazing. Others respect you right to your grazing land. This is also an example of absentee rights, since pastoralists in marginal environments need to shift between multiple plots. People are very aware of whose grazing land is whose. One interesting wrinkle is that foragers are allowed to hunt for game and honey and collect berries and tubers on grazing land when the owner is grazing a different plot (since their interests do not conflict).

4). Cattle. This is an easy one, since it is the etymological root of the word "capital". There is no debate that cattle are owned by the individual or lineage that fosters it. People have been respecting this form of Lockean homesteading since at least the neolithic revolution. Expanding on this example, there is even a system that nicely mirrors the "plight of the wage slave". Some individuals own massive herds of cattle, while others own none. The wealthy herds typically grow so large that the owner is unable to manage alone or with the aid of his close family. These "capitalists" will loan cattle to poor individuals. The poor are eager for the opportunity, because they are entitled to the milk that the cattle produce. However, the "capitalist" can come and reclaim his cattle whenever he wants. Not only that, but he is able to claim any resulting calves as "interest".

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism Thread Parent