> Capitalism is simply the codification of a monetary transaction to which both parties agree
Not really. A lot of today's capitalism is based on concepts such as copyright, patents and trade secrets, which are definitely not "natural" - in fact, they are directly opposite of "free market".
Personally, I believe that a capitalistic system where these three are eliminated or at least severely restricted would be much preferable to what we have today.
They are not "the" rights of ownership, they are a particular set of rights of ownership.
Once upon a time people were included in the set of things people had a right to own, and ideas weren't. These things can change. The rights we have now are just those we currently think of as most correct.
No, it's not the right of ownership it's the right of enforcing a monopoly. If I copy something you own, you still own it, I'm not taking anything away from you...
It would be amazing! Basically what we have now, but (1) noone would go to jail for piracy, and (2) all research would be shared much sooner, and you wouldn't need to worry which spurious patents your original research is infringing.
>it's not the right of ownership it's the right of enforcing a monopoly.
Ownership is a form of monopoly as well.
Just because a resource is rivalrous doesn't mean more than one person couldn't be permitted to use it, particularly when you're talking about capital goods.
Not really. A lot of today's capitalism is based on concepts such as copyright, patents and trade secrets, which are definitely not "natural" - in fact, they are directly opposite of "free market".
Personally, I believe that a capitalistic system where these three are eliminated or at least severely restricted would be much preferable to what we have today.