The utilitarian lure and trap of political argument (esp. within libertarianism)

Well take a look at history! How many societies have accepted the notion of private property, and how many have accepted the notion that all property is public?

You really need to transform it. Plowing a meadow to raise crops will make it yours, for example.

It's a natural human tendency!

Of course it's moral. Let's simplify: Say that I own the land, I did all the work, from building the plow to harvesting the crop. That crop is mine.

Now, let's say that the workload grows too big for me. I wish to create a contract with a laborer, so that they will work on the crops, and I will pay them a fee for their services. Being free people, they are completely free to do so. They sign the contract, and we both profit. I still own the crop, but because of the contract they signed, they will merely grow/harvest them for a fee. When does it become theirs? When do I lose the right to my own property?

I'll say it again: It is not war.

I am not responsible for the actions of anybody, anybody, but myself. If somebody sees a lack of laws as an opportunity to attack people, that is not my fault. You may take the issue up with them.

Selfishness is concern for one's self before other things. It is not inherently evil.

Sure - I'll respect your rights, and you'll respect mine. That's great.

We have no responsibility to ensure that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed. I am responsible for my own success, as is everybody else. If there is a poor black kid who cannot afford a college education, I may offer him a hand, if I am so inclined. However, this notion that you have the right to come along, force me to give up a portion of my wealth to help him, and lock me up for years of my life for simply disagreeing with you is absolutely ridiculous. What is this right, and where did you get it? Why do I not have the right to strip you of your wealth for my own reasons?

 

And how many societies have existed without a state to back up the notion of private property compared to those that have had no state?

Why? Who comes up with these arbitary laws?

Prove that please.

When did you have the right to the property - that's surely the question.

And I'll say it again - it is. You're unrealistic about human nature. You think if there are no laws people will live as noble savages, and not infer with one another at all for the gain of others. I am more realistic. I believe that the human race is made of people who are selfish and self preserving. In that climate, there will be a fight for ownership and power. There always has been, and there always will be. You can't change how people are.

You do have the right, if you were in charge of the state, which after all is elected by the people of a nation. Essentially, your argument claims rights, but does not prove they exist. I want evidence that they should exist.

No one said it was. In some ways its evolutionary. That's why the state much exist.

 

Iceland, circa 1000 A.D., for one.

If ownership is having a right to something, how would you be able to claim some land on the other side of the planet that you had done nothing to? I assert that you have a right to claim some previously unowned land if you use it, plow it, build a house on it, etc.

It's an evolutionary trait. A man who is willing to sacrifice his neighbor to save himself is more likely to pass along their genes than one who would not.

If it was previously unclaimed, I had the right to the property as soon as I began to produce something useful from it.

There are still laws in a free society - they're just provided by the free market.

Why can I not set up my own little counter-state? Or is it tyranny of the majority that we're going by?

I don't see. Why must it exist?

 

You clearly don't know about the Althing then? I suspect you tried to throw something so obscure at me I wouldn't know about it. Bad choice if you tried to do that, I must say.

You might assert that, but that's not proven. For a start, I argue that ownership is merely a legal concept, not a innate human idea or "right".

Furthermore, we don't live in a situation where there is much land up for grabs. So I don't see how your system does anything except entrench existing majorities.

That's not an argument to suggest ownership is a human trait though is it?

Who determines these laws, and what would they constitute?

You can, and you can watch it be destroyed by the armed forces if necessary. Hey, that's just states isn't it? Why should I care about your rights if you don't care about mine?

People are innately selfish and would fight among one another without the existence of a state. There would be no progress, only a load of men in caves fighting over limited resources.

 

Right, where they decided upon justice, legislation, etc. Were the people taxed? Were they forced to do things against their will?

Our human nature makes it a right. Individualistic creatures need land/property to survive. Being inherently selfish, we designate it our own.

That would only concern me if I were morally responsible for them.

Sure it is. This is my spear, my meat, my hunting lands. If you try to take them away, my family will kill your family. That's literally how we evolved.

Generally it would be the lowest bidder. They would constitute fairness, as in no stealing, fraud, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Merchant

It was implemented somewhat in the middle ages with moderate success.

Oh great, civil war. Kind of what you see in Iraq.

People are regulated by laws, which can be provided by the free market.

 

Well for a start, they owned slaves. So yes, people were forced to do things against their will.

That doesn't make it a right. No creature needs land or property to survive in reality, that much is clear. And so the right to ownership is very much open to question.

And if your argument of need was even correct, and needing something means that you have a right to it, which is by no means clear, then this has a profound effect on your own argument. People need food to live. It is thus their right to have food, and if they cannot get food alone, then it must be the case that others have the responsibility to accommodate for this right.

Exactly, civil war is what is brought about when you refuse to respect the rights of others, and there is no state. A war of all against all.

So you think it's right and fair that those who have everything should have everything because they were born that way?

And thus we need a state to ensure this no longer happens. You're making my argument for me very well.

There would be no realistic enforcement, and to me this system seems inherently unfair and will not work - your naming of Law Merchant confirms to me that you advocate a system where the speed of the trial matters more than the truth, meaning that no justice could be ever served in this state. Which all points to one thing - and that's the undermining of these courts by the general population and thus lawlessness.

 

That pesky slavery, always undermining freedom arguments.

You cannot survive with no land. Where would your food come from?

Right, they cannot be denied their own food. It doesn't follow that they have a right to some of mine.

Yet I do respect the rights of others. I would not intrude upon another's property, initiate aggression against another, etc. If I were not present, Person A would starve. If I am present, and I do not help them, they starve anyway. I am still not responsible.

Certainly. Say I have parents who are rich and successful by virtue of their own hard labor. Are they not free to give this wealth to me? If another person comes along, and demands a portion of it, what right do they have to it? It doesn't matter that they think that my concept of ownership is flawed - this is a private transaction between my parents and I, and does not concern them. If they try to involve themselves, I will uninvolve them. If they try to take my wealth my violence, I shall use violence back against them.

If this happens, it is no tragedy. If their family tries to steal from my family, and my family fights them off, killing them in the process, pity about them.

People like law and order. Unsuccessful, corrupt courts are boycotted, and fair ones are supported.

 

Where exactly does slavery come into your hopeless utopian vision then? Should we respect the rights of ownership or the rights of freedom of the sovereign?

I think you're getting a bit involved in the argument here.

I don't own farm land. But I do buy food. It comes from a supermarket.

But aside from this, we don't need individual ownership of land to survive per se; when we lived in caves there is no evidence that each person or family unit had their own hunting ground, they shared among each other and worked as a tribe as means of survival. The concept of individual ownership, is no more than a legal concept. It's a very useful way of running a society, and I don't advocate changing the system to common ownership whatsoever. That doesn't mean it's a human right to keep hold of everything one owns.

For every right their is a responsibility. In this case, your right to stay in a society and be treated as a human being is augmented with a responsibility in maintaining that society. If you don't want to live in that society, then you can try and set up a competing one. That's up to you, you're perfectly free to do so. Of course, if you use the land of a country and steal it in order to run your own society then you might suffer concequences. But that's the nature of states isn't it?

Taken to its logical conclusion, that means that parents who starve their children had no responsibility in the death of that child. Non-action can be morally reprehensible as action.

You seem to distinguish with this idea of "own hard labour". Does that mean that if someone got rich not doing very much, they aren't entitled to that wealth? Why is it important that the action is "hard labour"?

You have the right to use violence at any stage, no one can stop you. Doesn't mean you won't then be arrested or killed. What you're showing again and again is that this individualistic utopia would be, essentially a civil war situation. It seems to me that under this system we would not progress one iota except in the field of civil war.

It is a tragedy if every single family does the same thing, fighting among one another for limited resources. What you have shown is all you care about is your own specific dogmatic belief, and not whether or not human kind can actually advance in areas of life, or indeed even creating a stable society. At the end of the day, I must ask, why would this hellish situation be worth it?

That depends on whether people aim to go for courts that are fair or ones that are likely to support them because of internal biases. Who would decide which court to visit? The impracticalities are hilariously numerous.

 

You can certainly sell your labor, but you cannot really sell yourself into slavery. What happens if a person who sells themselves into slavery changes their mind in the future? The worst that the "slave owner" can do is specified in the terms of the contract that they would have signed.

Either nobody owns property, or somebody does. If nobody does, then I have the same right to the food that you eat, the water you drink, the roof under which you live - even your organs!

If somebody owns property, then wouldn't it be the person who originally controls it, or produces it?

I reject that I have the responsibility to maintain that society. My right to walk among my equals is accompanied by my responsibility not to kill them, or steal from them.

Yes, indeed, unless the parents signed a contract to take care of the children.

It doesn't have to be hard labor. Anybody who produces wealth by their own means owns that wealth, and may do with it as they wish. If they give it all to a friend, they transfer the ownership to that friend.

Self-defense is never immoral. I choose life as my moral standard. From this, I recognize that to take any property away from a person that they may use to sustain their life is immoral. If the tax collector tries to take my wheat, it is immoral unless I have given him permission to take it.

Generally, most people want to live in peace. I doubt that there would be such a bloody conflict.

I don't know of many people who would prefer to go to an unfair court. I don't see how they'd be more viable.

 

So you don't respect ownership rights then? If someone wants to buy slaves, and they are willing to be sold into slavery, surely it is against the owner's rights if someone takes them away? That is unjust!

As I have said before, ownership is merely a legal concept. It's not a human right, and thus your human rights are not been violated if some of your property is taken away. Until you prove ownership is a human right, which thus far you have not (all I've heard so far is some vague ramblings that people need hunting grounds), then it legitimate to exchange taxation for services.

That's fine then - you can leave and start up your own society. And if my society attacks your society for stealing its land, then so be it. It's the natural way of competition. I'm not really concerned that you don't think you have a responsibility to society - as I say you have the option to leave if you don't like it. By staying in the boundaries of my society, you essentially are agreeing to its laws and thus consenting to taxation. If you do not wish to do this, you can leave, I will not stop you.

And yet that friend has not produced wealth by "their own means" - perhaps its time you sorted out your definition of ownership.

Surely, if you choose life as your moral standard, your argument works if, and only if, you need the wheat to survive? If surviving is your only goal, then why should it matter that the wheat that you won't need to survive is taken? Your argument is not one about life, it's one of dogmatic belief.

This is brilliant stuff. I'll ask again, why do you want to live in a world like this? It seems to me that it would cause the suffering of millions. And for what? Some grain? Count me out.

You essentially are arguing for rights without responsibilities, a fundamentally flawed concept. At the end of the day, if you really want to live in a world where the parent who doesn't care for their children intentionally shouldn't get punished then perhaps you need to look a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why.

Yeah, because we all know human kind never engages in bloody conflict over land and resources don't we?

I know of many, many people who would go to a court that favours them rather than the opposition. People are individuals, why would they care about justice when that might risk them having to be punished for their actions?

 

Because we are beings of free will, we cannot really be property. If you sign a contract with a man that states that you are his slave, there must be penalties for going against this contract. All one has to do is suffer the penalties, and then they are free.

Property is either owned by everybody collectively, nobody at all, or individuals. These are the only three consistent ways to do it. If you choose either of the first two, then I have just as much a right to your food as you do. The end result is chaos.

Why should I have to leave if you're the one stealing from me?

You're right - they haven't. Yet, if the original producer creates that wealth themselves, and owns it entirely, then they have the right to give it to a friend, including all ownership entitlements.

My life being the moral standard means that anything that I may do to promote my life is moral. If this means growing extra wheat to sell, that I may afford extra essentials, then so be it.

You're oversimplifying to a large degree. No one person is morally responsible for another. If I spot a man dying on the street, and I easily could have saved him with a quick phone call, and I don't, I am not morally responsible for his death - for he would have died anyway.

Unless the parents signed a contract to be responsible for the child's well-being, they are not morally responsible for it. It doesn't matter if it saddens you that a child died. It doesn't matter how innocent or cute they were - the fact of the matter is that Person A is not responsible for Person B.

Of course we do, but the system under which it happens doesn't dictate how moral it is. Murder under anarchy is the same as murder under fascism. Murder is murder, and it is immoral.

In any case, who prevents bloody conflicts over land and resources under government?

I'm sure they'd like to, but a biased court is less viable than a fair one. If the DRO (dispute resolution organization) listed in people's contracts is widely renowned for being biased towards one side or the other, will the people sign those contracts? If they do, whose fault is it?

 

What if the penalty is death?

I would advocate the third one, and yet this does prove ownership as being a right. Only if that is achieved do any of your arguments actually work.

Because you have given your consent to this action by living in that society. If you no longer wish to consent, then I cannot stop you leaving. Youi consent to taxation by living in my society. If you don't like it, leave it. It's not my problem; it's yours.

Again your argument is hilariously over simplified and keeps referring to things like "essentials" and "hard labour", when, in reality, a lot of the time neither of these things are applicable. I suspect you're not really talking about "essentials" at all, merely luxuries. That's not a problem; I have no issue with people who can afford luxuries. But don't pretend your argument is about the morality of life.

I'm not the one who's being talking about wheat fields am I? Explain to me how I'm oversimplifying.

You said he wouldn't have died if you chose to you your phone. I'm afraid I do not accept your analysis of morality; non action is in some cases the same as action. I do not really see the difference between me refusing to give you food and thus starving you, and shooting you with a gun. Do you really see the former being morally acceptable?

And more importantly, why do you want to live in a world like this? That's my question.

The question is then, why is it immoral? You have undermined every right going with your argument, so I would like a suggestion as to why you believe murder can be claimed immoral.

And furthermore, this is all idealistic claptrap designed specifically to get round the argument - the point is that without a state, what is there to stop people fighting over land and resources? Leaving immorality and morality aside for a minute, why should it not be the case that everyone will engage in a war of all against all if there is no institutions to stop that being the case?

An unbiased court cannot exist. Every court is biased. At the moment, the courts are biased towards the side of the law of the country that you live in. Why would these biases by removed in your hopeless system?

 

Then if they try to violate the contract, they are killed. If they sign that contract of their own free will, there is nothing wrong with that.

r]

What does it matter if it's a right, or just something that everybody uses? It's still your property, and taking a portion of it is still stealing.

I say that I don't. By living in society, I agree to not initiate aggressive action against an individual.

Luxuries better my life.

Wheat fields are an example.

This isn't "just for some wheat". It's for freedom.

Non-action is not action, non-action is just that - non-action.

Of course I see the former being morally acceptable. Most people would only have a problem with it due to that human instinct to save other humans whenever you can - an evolutionary advantage.

A free world is preferable to a non-free world.

It all depends on what you choose as your moral standard. If you choose life, then acting against a life or its means of survival is immoral (including murder)

First, such fighting happens even with a state. Second, the free market can provide laws and law enforcement.

There are varying degrees of bias. Obviously it is impossible to completely remove all bias, yet a system that is 1% biased is preferable to a system that is 100% biased.

 

So then you don't believe in the human right to life? As you say - what happens if they change their mind? Shouldn't the slave have the ability to have sovereignty over their own body? Or do you deny them this?

Stealing is again a legal concept, just as ownership is. Therefore, it stands to reason that the state can take a proportion of your wealth in return for services and the state is not going against any of your "rights". It is merely acting on a legal framework which you yourself have agreed to.

Well, I'm sorry, that's not how this society works. If you don't like it, you can find another one.

And why should I care about that? You have chosen to live in this society, and so you have agreed to the action of taxation.

Freedom is "the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints". Does the child who starves have freedom? Does the disabled man have freedom under your state? Is the slave free? Of course not. So it's not freedom. All it is is freedom for some, enslavement for many. That's your proposal. That is not true freedom.

At the end of the day, it is for some wheat. All you are proving is that you have an hilariously dogmatic approach to argument. You don't really care about freedom; all you care about is your insane notion of freedom.

It matters not, your argument has essentially disintergrated under its contradictions. Your argument about rights has, as you admit, faultered, and by admitting that ownership is not a right, the carpet has been pulled out from under your ideals. The state is not abusing your rights by taking some of your property away. Therefore, it has a right to do so. Stealing is merely a legal concept built by the state.

A world that doesn't advance, a world where children die because of abusive parents, and the parents are told that's alright, a world of perpectual civil war. Tell me, how is that preferable to anything?

The free market can only provide laws if the people want laws. What's to say they will want law, and who's to say what these laws will be? In a state of civil war, my guess is the laws advocated might well not be the kind of laws that inhibit civil war.

 

If they sign a contract pledging to work extremely hard for somebody, whenever they are needed, and agree that if they break the contract, the "owner" has the right to kill them, then tough luck on them.

First, what are rights? How are they determined?

Second, from this logic, does it follow that theft is moral? If I can circumvent the law, and steal something from you, why is that wrong if you don't really own it?

Third, I have not agreed to any such thing. Where is the contract? Where is my signature? Where have I given them my approval? I am here, living peacefully. I do not use any of their services if I can help it (when I do, I can hardly be blamed as they have a monopoly). You talk about my not having any right to it - why do they have a right to it?

I am not allowed to protest immoral actions? I must agree to every single aspect of what the government does, or leave?

I have not agreed to be taxed.

By freedom, I mean freedom from aggressive behavior - the right to do what you want, when you want.

Yes, the child who starves has freedom, as does the disabled man. Nobody is taking their food away, or their property.

How is it enslavement?

The wheat was an example.

My notion of freedom really isn't insane.

Hang on, remember that little scenario a while back? Either nobody has rights to (or owns) property, everybody does, or individuals do. You chose individuals. Do you still choose it for rights?

Also, if humans don't have the right to own property, that does not mean that a group of humans has a positive right to take property. The state would have just as much of a lack of rights to own anything.

Stealing is built into nature itself. Hyenas steal from leopards. Birds steal from one another. This is by no means a "state invention".

It would be a world that does advance, as there are no market restrictions.

Children would not really by dying - how many parents want their children to die? Even so, it remains outside my realm of responsibility.

There would not be civil war - laws are provided by the free market.

People want peace, in general. People want stable markets, in general. The free institutions that are best capable of providing these in fair manners are the ones that will flourish.

 

Well you're at odds with Mill and most classic liberals here. You have shown here is the only freedom you care about is this vague notion of freedom of ownership, not the sovereignty of one's own body and the theory that no being can be coerced by another. You've abandoned your principles of freedom for some shallow notion of ownership.

I would ask you the same question.

Personally I'd take the view that a right is derived from the idea that the we should live by maxims that you can wish to be universal. You cannot wish for lying to be universal because that would undermine the useful nature of lying. So therefore lying is not a right and is immoral. The second strand of this model is that we must all accept the legitimacy of each other's moral agency, if ours is to be accepted. Therefore, we all have rights which are inalienable.

Where do you get the idea that I think "it" is not owned?

What is your obsession with contracts and signatures? Can we only agree to things if we sign a contract? I find it a weird system really. If I agree to something verbally is that not valid?

You have agreed to it, because you have chosen to live in this society. If you are compelled to move then do so, I will do nothing to take away your ability to do so.

As for whether or not the state has the right to use taxation, it's due to something called democracy. People in this society have voted for a representative body which advocates taxation. In this area, where there is no right to ownership, the right of democratic rule should rule - if there was a real existence of a right where all your property is retained then the state would be unjust to do this. Until you prove that this right exists, then the state's actions are not unjust.

If you disagree, you can complain, but that might not help you. You may have to leave if you disagree so strongly. That's really not our problem.

You can protest and complain, you have the right to freedom of speech. Doesn't mean you're right about the "immorality" of the state, and doesn't mean you should impose your vision of freedom upon me.

Secondly, you're confusing things here - you're not arguing against the executive. You're arguing against the existence of an executive, legislature and judiciary. You're saying that the people should not be allowed to have a say in how the place they live in is run.

A good, solid argument.

Well then explain how the disabled man has the ability to do what he wants, when he wants? How can the man who has no food and no money because he lost both legs do what he wants, when he wants? You aren't advocating freedom, that's a complete fallacy.

Even under your system, who can do what they want when they want? I can't murder someone can I?

Is that your only condition for freedom? If so, how shallow such a noble term has become.

Well I would suggest this system where people can starve others because they don't sign a contract doesn't sound much like freedom to me.

I think individuals should own some of their property because it is a good way of running society and giving people an incentive to work hard. I do not see property as a right, I see it as a necessity of running a society.

Furthermore, you argue constantly from a position of fallacy; ownership and property is composite. For example the state can take some of my wealth away, and yet I still own the rest of it. And for me, who doesn't believe that ownership is a right, that is not immoral. It only becomes immoral if you prove it is a right - which so far you, as you yourself have admitted, have failed to do.

In these examples, who owns what? Why does a bird own food because it found it? And what if another bird had found the food before, and had left it lying around with no mark of ownership. Who owns what and why? With nature, the concept of ownership as we know it is nonsensical.

Irrelevant. Your argument is that not only is it outside your realm of responsibility, but that it's morally alright for parents to starve their children to death. If you see that as progress then so be it. I do not.

Would they be? Have you actual evidence of the free market providing free and fair justice?

When people are at war, do they want peace? Not always. If they believe their side is right and think they should win, then they do not wish for peace. What then?

 

I have shown no such thing. Of course you can be coerced by another if you're on their property, and causing it harm.

So why can property ownership not be a right?

You've stated that you have no right to own it. It follows that I have as much of a right to own it as you - which is none at all. So if I can circumvent the law, why shouldn't I steal from you?

Verbal agreement is fine, but if ever brought up in court, it's a lot less definitive than a signed contract.

By living in society, I do not agree to taxation.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Under your system, if the majority advocates something as just, then it is just.

Can you not argue against all rights? What rights do exist then, by your standards?

Tyranny of the majority again.

I'm not imposing anything upon you. I want the majority to stop imposing itself on me

Of course they should be allowed to have a say in how the place they live is run. You just don't get a say in what I do with myself.

It's freedom from aggressive action.

Of course there are limitations. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't violate the non-aggression principle.

It's still a noble term, if you want to look at it that way. People are literally their own owners, and are able to do whatever they want without fear of being stopped by somebody else.

People are only responsible for themselves unless they enter into a contract with somebody else.

As I've said before, either nobody has a right to property, everybody does, or individuals do. If nobody has a right to it, then my claim to your food is as valid as yours. If everybody does, we have the same situation.

As I've also said before, life is my moral choice. To initiate action against life, or anything used to support or better that life, is immoral.

Some animals have a built-in sense of ownership because they control something. They don't have free will, so they have no right to it. However, humans, as rational beings who can support our own lives, do have a right to property.

It doesn't matter if you see it as progress, lol. Nobody is morally responsible for anybody else unless they enter into a contract with them.

The justice wouldn't be free at all - what profit would there be in that?

Fair justice has been provided by law merchants in the middle ages.

Then their action, if they were the initiators, is immoral, and may be dealt with by the recipients in a reciprocating manner.

 

Your notion of liberty is merely that no one takes our property away from us. That's incredibly shallow and shows you have no respect for the individual's sovereignty over their own body.

More to the point, it's up to you to prove it is a right. You have not done so.

Stealing would be immoral because it cannot be applied as a universal maxim.

Well you have in essence - surely if you don't like taxation to such a degree, you would move? Indeed, this is a principle of the free market isn't it? You would argue that when people do not like a product, they would boycott it and buy another similar product. Well the same is true with states. If you don't like taxation, and others agreed, you should all leave. Then the state would have to do something about all this emigration, and this would mean the end of taxation. But because you don't move, you agree to taxation, just like if you buy a product you believe it to be the best product.

Typical response, but sometimes you need to read what's written, rather than see the word democracy and recoil in terror, like most of your ilk do.

A democratic system should not be able to override the rights of the minority. That much I would agree with. But the point is this - property is not a right. You have not proven that to me. And until you do, the state should be allowed to take some of your wealth without overriding any rights. That's why it's so important that you prove ownership is a right, something which you have not done.

Only if the majority are overriding your rights. Which they aren't.

So not freedom? I reject your notion of freedom as shallow and nonsensical. Most people will not have freedom under this system at all.

It is a fallacy to assume human being do have free will. That is unproven.
What happens in the past controls the present and the future. We can't control the past. We can't control how the past controls the present and the future. So we can't control the present and the future. The illusion of free will is a fallacy, and if that is the basis of your argument then it too is a fallacy.

This sort of thing makes me laugh. Do you really have a grasp of what law merchants actually were, and what sort of "justice" they provided? Or did you, as I expect, find the name on the internet and claim that they provided justice for your own ends?

When one lives in a society, one has a contract with it. If you do not agree with that contract, live somewhere else.

But that's not true at all. Under your conception, people are free only when none of their property is taken away from them. So if no taxation was taken from them, but they were only allowed to speak on Thursday, under your definition, they would be free. I do not agree with that shallow definition of freedom.

So a state of a civil war then?

 

I just revised my position on slavery - a contract invoking it would be invalid, as you necessarily cannot give up the right to self-ownership. It's inalienable.

Life is my moral choice. To initiate action against life, or anything used to support or better that life, is immoral.

Second, if individuals do not have property rights, then you have no right to your property. I may take it if I wish.

Neither can the government's taking of property. Do realize that the government itself exists only as an abstraction. In reality, it's composed of individuals. These individuals only have the power to take property from others because the majority support them.

First, I will not be forced out of my home country by oppression.

Second, where would I move to?

A democratic system should not be able to override the rights of the minority. That much I would agree with. But the point is this - property is not a right. You have not proven that to me. And until you do, the state should be allowed to take some of your wealth without overriding any rights. That's why it's so important that you prove ownership is a right, something which you have not done.[/quote]

A pure democracy is one where the majority rules. A pure democracy is literally tyranny of the majority.

Property is a right. First, life is my moral choice. To initiate action against life, or anything used to support or better that life, is immoral. You're free to choose death if you wish, but then the most moral thing to do is to commit suicide.

Freedom from aggressive action is still freedom. It includes free speech, the ability to go where you wish, etc., as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

In all likelihood, we very probably do not have free will, as the human mind can be reduced to particles, all of which have a definite position and momentum.

But what does it matter? We still think and act exactly as we would if we had free will.

Of course. They provided common, fair justice, somewhat similar to independent arbiters today. If they're the only form of justice available, the demand for fairness will go through the roof, driving the biased ones into the dust.

I say you don't. Can you prove that such a contract exists, or what its contents are?

It's not just property, it's freedom from all aggressive action. You cannot initiate any sort of aggressive action against a person, ever.

More of self-defense.