Thr free market obviously can't figure out how to carry out society fully without violent force being used in certain situations.
What do you mean by that?
No serious proponent of the free market denies an unrestricted right to retaliatory, retributive, punitive, and consensual violent force.
The solution to people violating others' rights isn't to turn the other cheek, but to make it the last thing that person has done in their life.
Please do not confuse anarchists and pacifists.
Why would someone eat dinner at home with his family? Nobody is being paid to be there.
What kind of Mickey Mouse nonsense is this?
Humans act in order to obtain a psychic profit. Getting out of bed and brushing your teeth is an entrepreneurial act. Not all profit is monetary or financial.
2. Because Bob controls the water supply and there's high demand for water, he jacks the prices way up, creating artificial water scarcity.
I take an issue with this. How can Bob "control the water supply"?
If there exists only one water supply in the world, then you are not arguing against the free market, you are arguing against monopolies.
Then you would need to examine whether monopolies are more likely, more harmful, and more persistent in a free or in a state society.
You are making the error of putting human behaviour and it's moral justification in the box of logic and rational thought, this admirably Teutonic of you but ultimately incorrect in application outside the constraints of hypotheticals.
I very strongly disagree.
Every human being uses theory, consciously or subconsciously, in their life. Whenever you set one foot in front of another, you are (usually subconsciously) operating on a ton of theory. Theory on how your joints and muscles move, theory on weight transfer and balance, theory on material science with the ground you are stepping on. You are relying on theoretical framework and knowledge whenever you do something in this world.
Nobody is seriously making the argument that everything a human does is somehow the product of intense philosophical thinking.
rights" are a social fiction, and as a concept are something that are given, that by this nature can also be taken away and are conditional.
This is flatly false. The concept of "rights" as being "granted" is ludicrous and nonsensical.
Rights can be deduced from the nature of reality and peaceful coexistence alone.
Where do natural rights come from? I think you are confusing grammar/communication with reality and you are expecting that a certain combination of words exists like a magic spell that grant ontological significance to your concept of "rights".
From nature; it's in the name - "natural" rights. The nature of peaceful coexistence among actors with free will.
Any notion of a "source of rights" indicates the fallacy of primacy of consciousness.
You know what, screw the negrates, I'll go ahead and derive objective law for you, cliffnotes style.
What is law?
Law is a normative standard that deals with justice.
"Normative standard" means law is evaluative. That means that legal theory is what you use to identify a group of criminals and a group of non-criminals, with reference to a norm.
"Justice" means that law prohibits that which is unjust and permits that which is just. When I say that X is just, it means that X can be argumentatively justified. So law is a normative standard which guides people to just actions (instead of unjust ones).
Argumentative justification is a human action that requires scarce means.
Action is defined as purposeful behavior, the implementation of some scarce means towards some end. The means a man employs is necessarily scarce (otherwise it wouldn't be a means), that is to say, his use of it prevents others from being able to use it. In argumentatively justifying anything, a man has to thus concern himself with scarcity.
It is precisely this scarcity that introduces a possibility for interpersonal conflict, defined as contradictory actions. If I am trying to use a stick as a walking cane at the same time that you are trying to use it to stoke a campfire, we have a conflict. The stick its scarce, so I using it prevents you from using it, only one of those two alternatives is able to take place, one action excludes the other.
Because this possibility of interpersonal conflict cannot be ignored in argumentative justification. Any legal theory must assign exclusive property rights to determine the just winner in a given conflict. Law thus identifies which set of people is engaged in a just direction (non-criminals) and which set is engaged in an unjust direction (criminals). In other words, law can't say that a given direction of some means is both just and unjust.
Now the overwhelming majority of retorts to this position are based in legal positivism. Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not its merits. In other words, a legal positivist claims that law is not a subset of ethics, and thus there could be such a thing as a virtuous crime.
To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The positivist thesis does not say that law’s merits are unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to the philosophy of law. It says that they do not determine whether laws or legal systems exist. Whether a society has a legal system depends on the presence of certain structures of governance, not on the extent to which it satisfies ideals of justice, democracy, or the rule of law. What laws are in force in that system depends on what social standards its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs. The fact that a policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never sufficient reason for doubting it. According to positivism, law is a matter of what has been posited (ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.). Austin thought the thesis “simple and glaring”. While it is probably the dominant view among analytically inclined philosophers of law, it is also the subject of competing interpretations together with persistent criticisms and misunderstandings.
To a legal positivist, law is a description of the specific arrangement of possessions, rather than a theory describing the just arrangement of possessions.
The legal positivist thus makes the claim that law has nothing to do with justice, rather the law is determined by raw might. If A is able to physically defeat B in a conflict and thus perform an action X, the positivist goes only as far as to point and say "A won the conflict, therefore the law on this conflict is that A won".
That is a complete non-theory. So what if A won? It is truly horrifying that people think they can take an entire area of philosophy and replace it with "whoever wins a given conflict has won that conflict".
The legal positivist can't even come up with a theory predicting when people will choose to engage in conflict and who is likely to win.
Even if the legal positivist were to reject the separation of law and justice, with the claim that might makes right, their position is still dead. The "might makes right" theory of law is a form of legal polylogism. It is the claim that the logic of which actions are justifiable can change depending on whether you are able to successfully carry out that action and muscle away anybody who gets in the way.
Legal polylogism has the general problem that it implies contradiction. For there to be different legal codes A, B, C..., A must be incompatible with every other legal code B, C, ... in at least one aspect. If legal codes A and B are incompatible on an action X, A claims it to be just and B claims it to be unjust. The legal polylogist now asserts that both A and B are correct, that X can both be justified and cannot be justified, a contradiction.
Since legal polylogism is false in general, this form of "might makes right" legal polylogism is false also.
The tl;dr is that rights simply are, they don't come from some consciousness whether it's divine or social or individual. The source of rights is not arbitrary thoughts or decrees, but the logic of justification and conflict.
