I've been following Bowery's posting career for a few years now, identifying the various threads of his perspective and piecing them together from a wide range of sources. One of his more interesting perspectives concerns the limitations of mainstream libertarians and the Austrian school in particular.
The foundation of Bowery's own perspective can be illustrated as follows:
In contrast to natural rights, artificial property rights are entitlements to objects of property that contracting parties agree to observe; i.e., X and Y agree that Y has a duty to observe X's monopoly over a given object.
With the fundamental natural right to initiate force and acquire land to sustain one's existence in view, Bowery sets out the following principle:
Carl Schmitt makes a similar point in his lecture on The Concept of the Political in the context of his critique of strictly liberal-economic reductions of the political. Though he takes a moralizing tone, the point is essentially amoral. A system of free association predicated on rational self-interest could never consistently require individuals to enter into contracts that involved the abrogation of self-ownership.