I’ve been working on the premise that property is simply an extension of ones self. Therefore the rights/laws that apply to man, also apply to his property.

” This is one funny Randroid nut. ”

That nut is so dishonest that when I posted a comment reminding him of the need to address Jay Lakner’s question seeking justification for his definition of “property”, he actually deleted my comment. It clearly shows how intellectually dishonest he is and how busy he is evading reality.

I am still curious where you think your own (or anyone’s) base principles come from. How are they justified? Or are they? If they are, what is the basis? If not, then all we have is whatever norms we have in common–or whatever norms a relevant community of discoursers has in common (which is why a Hoppean discourse ethics approach has appeal, IMO).

And this type of approach seems to dodge the aggression issue. Are you saying you are in favor of aggression, in some cases…? If so, your “it’s not so simple” approach seems like that of conservatives, who say they believe in liberty but it’s just one of many “values”; they always eristically say they don’t “elevate” liberty to the “highest principle” or some such, unlike libertarians–which is a roundabout way of saying, “I am in favor of aggression because I think value Y is more important.” Which is of course also similar to the way a criminal thinks about it: I will commit aggression because I value that guy’s wallet more.

Basically, you seem to be talking about how to think about what constitutes property but I’m not sure what your conception is. You seem to be criticizing any method of judging things. It sounds like you have some kind of status quo Tory conception, talking about “our conception of property” while permitting no discussion about what it is.

I hesitate to jump into the Gene-Stephan debate, because it’s never going to be resolved, but I can’t resist adding my two cents.

When people negotiate with one another, they seek to satisfy self-interest if they are rational. But being rational, they consider the interests of those with whom they are negotiating.

If one could discover a single principle by which all conflicts could be resolved amicably, and all are willing to accept that principle, then that discovery is worth more than gold.

Libertarians believe they’ve found a pair of principles by which to resolve conflict: homestead and non-aggression.

Gene doesn’t think moral practice can be reduced to a single principle or sparse set.

I have doubts whether mutual self-interest can be satisfied by a sparse set of principles.

So far, however, I’d say that of any system whose proponents claim to have the magic wand, libertarianism comes closest.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf

He describes Ireland as having existed under anarchy for a thousand years. [Anarchy = absence of the State, not the absence of government.]

And I’m saying this with full recognition of the fact that saying so will have convinced you to your own satisfaction that you have “proved me wrong” somehow.

But tell me – are you in the habit of badgering people into false dichotomies during the scope of a good-hearted discussion?

Do you or do you not support the state using force to outlaw competing justice agencies? It’s simple yes or no. If yes, then you support aggression. If not, you are an anarchist like me. No amount of squirming and evasion can change this. Choose.

You are definitely winning the argument you are making, but you are not arguing with me. You are redefining some terms that I might use, and then you promptly defeat the argument you have claimed that I must make. The problem is that I am not making that argument, nor is it necessary for me to do so.

You have imagined a necessary link between government rules and aggression. Soon enough, your argument devolves into meaningless abstraction. For example, is a state-imposed law against murder an act of aggression against would-be aggressors? By your line of reasoning, I think such a debate could go back and forth for some time. The problem is, that debate has no connection to the real world.

A rule may or may not be an act of aggression – that depends on the rule. I wholly reject your package-deal fallacy that a system of government is synonymous to an act of aggression. Here is another example of something being both logically valid and logically false.

In an imaginary world in which “state” is synonymous with “aggression” or “force,” I would agree with you. The problem is that this world is imaginary. These two (or three) words are not synonymous and never will be. Rand at least suggested that the state is the only entity for which brute force is legal, but that falls far short of equating the two terms.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between rules and force. Anyone who plays basketball or any other game will attest to that.

However, I am willing to admit to the possibility that our only meaningful disagreement is with the term “force.” It may be that our view of the optimal political society has more similarities than differences.

There is nothing wrong with force per se. Randians propertly recognize man may not initiate force. This is called aggression. It is aggression that libertarians and Randians oppose, as it is the only way to violate rights.

Force that is consented to, or that is in response to initiated force, is perfectly legitimate.

The problem with the state is that it engages in aggression. You cannot oppose aggression, and favor the state. PEriod. IF the “state” does not commit aggression, then it is not a state, and we do not oppose it. You say that you oppose taxation. This is not really true, because your alternative funding mechanisms are either ridiculous and non serious (a lottery!?) or tantamount to a tax (charging a contract enforcement fee–after monopolizing the courts! … say, I guess the price charged will be Objectively Reasonable!). If your state outlaws competing defense agencies, it does this by committing aggression to stop them. Once it does this, it’s the only game in town. This permits it to charge monopoly prices, and to provide bad service. Anyone who is aware of the problem of state monopolies knows this. Any person who wants protection and justice has no choice but to use the state, and pay whatever fees it sets. This is the same as a tax, and in any event is aggression.

If you do not support this, surrpise–you’re an anarchist too! If you do support this, you cannot claim to be against the initiation of force. Choose.

In an imaginary world in which “state” is synonymous with “aggression” or “force,” I would agree with you. The problem is that this world is imaginary. These two (or three) words are not synonymous and never will be. Rand at least suggested that the state is the only entity for which brute force is legal, but that falls far short of equating the two terms.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between rules and force. Anyone who plays basketball or any other game will attest to that.

However, I am willing to admit to the possibility that our only meaningful disagreement is with the term “force.” It may be that our view of the optimal political society has more similarities than differences.

Stephan, I’m explicitly talking about normatively judging these things, and I am claiming that:
1) It can’t be done the way you and your objectivist targets are trying to do it, by deductively working from first principles; and
2) The attempt to try to so proceed produces barbaric results, such as Rothbard declaring starving your infant to death should be legal, or just plain nonsense, like Hoppe’s argumentation ethics.

Gotcha. I was not clear you were talking normatively, it did not seem explicit to me.

Ethical decision making is a practical, not a theoretical, activity, and the right use of ‘principles’ in it is as reminders or rules of thumb, that must be carefully balanced and weighed against each other in reaching a decision. To make them ironclad ‘rules’ whose deductive consequences must be unwaveringly followed is to worship an abstraction.

that is all fine, but you are talking here not about how we get the rules or principles, but about what their content should be, and how abstract or general they should be. When we criticize something as being unjust–as you are doing here re the rule about starving a baby–you are using certain normative principles. You are assuming the validity or truth of certain norms, in your criticism. Right? Calling your application of your principles a practical matter or the application of rules of thumb does not specify where you get your grundnorms from, or how or why they are justified.

I believe that what you *do* as a “practical matter,” in “real life,” is you discourse with others and you appeal to commonly-held values. Most civilized people agree on X, Y, Z grundnorms, so you appeal to these as being uncontroversial foundations to build upon. (Certain criminals and misanthropes do not share these grundnorms, so you simply don’t waste time with them.)

I think the AE approach simply recognizes that this appeal or resort to commonly-shared values is inescapable. It recognizes that natural law can NOT “deduce” norms or values, from mere facts. It recognizes that you can ONLY appeal to values that others DO for some reason share. And it points out that some set of basic norms are always, necessarily, shared by participants engaged in peaceful discourse. What do you disagree with here? What is “deductive” or “impractical” about this?

Minarchists and statists often word it this way to masque the fact that to NOT “embrace anarchism” means to endorse aggression. The anarcho-libertarian doesn’t “justify” anarchy. Rather, he opposes aggression, and therefore thinks the state, because it necessarily uses aggression, is criminal and unjustifed. So don’t say you don’t “embrace anarchism.” Say that you favor the state’s use of aggression–if that is really what you believe. And then see if you can justify it. You can’t say “well the state’s use of aggression against innocent victims is justified, because the anarchist hasn’t justified why I should ‘embrace anarchy.’” You have to be prepared to defend your endorsement of the state’s aggression. for more on this see my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.