[Eran]

I could use the same offhand dismissal of human force and coercion. In any case why is it so different from the forces of nature or the influences of human society?

Forces of nature may be unfortunate, while forces of humans are evil.

Scarcity and the laws of nature are an unavoidable part of the physical universe which we inhabit. They are outside the realm of moral discussion. Our behaviour as well as that of our fellow humans, on the other hand, or precisely the object of moral discussion.

How do individuals have an equal opportunity given the inherent inegalitarianism not only within human society but nature itself?

My goal is not to give people equal opportunity to express their values, but rather to prohibit people from forcing other people to express their values.

[Sceptic]

Forces of nature may be unfortunate, while forces of humans are evil.

Ok, I can agree with this - human action is purposive whereas natural forces occur without meaning or purpose (they are never random because chemical systems are always predetermined). Having said that, forces of determinism can render human forces without meaning or purpose as well.

But other forms of human influence can be 'evil', I don't have to use force and coercion: I can publish slander about a man and ruin his life, for example. In fact, these subtle forms of influence are often much worse and psychologically damaging in a lot of ways. Human force is often used to correct them.

My goal is not to give people equal opportunity to express their values, but rather to prohibit people from forcing other people to express their values.

Back to square one.

My original argument was that the logical conclusion of your theory about the subjectivity of ethics was that since no belief system can be 'more' right than another, they should all be given proportional, i.e. equal, representation, so I can't see how you got back to this.

[Eran]

But other forms of human influence can be 'evil', I don't have to use force and coercion: I can publish slander about a man and ruin his life, for example.

I agree. I made the point to distinguish purposeful human action, which is subject to moral judgement, and natural forces (including non-purposeful human behaviour) which isn't.

My contention is that there is something special about aggression (=initiation of force) relative to other forms of evil behaviour. Only the former can legitimately be countered by force, whereas the latter ought to be resisted or mitigated using peaceful means.

My original argument was that the logical conclusion of your theory about the subjectivity of ethics was that since no belief system can be 'more' right than another, they should all be given proportional, i.e. equal, representation, so I can't see how you got back to this.

It is impossible to give different ethical belief systems equal representation. For one thing, some belief systems are mutually contradictory.

I am proposing a different approach. This approach, often known as the Non Aggression Principle, I would phrase as:
No Person may initiate force against another person or his ongoing (peaceful) projects.


This principle has several advantages:
1. It is a recipe for peaceful, prosperous society, without the abuse of force that invariably seeps into any other arrangement.
2. It ultimately and maximally respects the humanity of each of us.
3. It is the only justifiable moral theory pertaining to inter-personal relations.

To clarify, I am not arguing that the NAP can be "proven". Ultimately, like all moral theories, it has to be accepted by humans based on their subjective attitudes. However, it is the only theory that can be justified through a rational argument between humans. This is my take on Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics.

[Sceptic]

Eran, sometimes it just has to be pointed out to a person that they are just missing the bleeding obvious.

It might surprise you to know that I would broadly describe my trends as leaning towards classical liberalism: after all, it was J.S. Mill who invented the harm principle, Locke, the homesteading principle to (mis)quote, 'where each man may homestead by virtue of labour, within reason, so as not to exclude others from doing the same' and Hayek had his own theories of redistribution. In fact, even Ludwig von Mises supported the state. Furthermore, Austrian economics was never invented by Libertarians.

I agree. I made the point to distinguish purposeful human action, which is subject to moral judgement, and natural forces (including non-purposeful human behaviour) which isn't.

I have no idea what you are saying, if I harm someone through non-coercive means it is still purposeful human action. How are you defining natural forces?

My contention is that there is something special about aggression (=initiation of force) relative to other forms of evil behaviour. Only the former can legitimately be countered by force, whereas the latter ought to be resisted or mitigated using peaceful means.

There really is nothing special about agression, it can be initiated with the best intentions or for the worst. Sometimes non-coercive behaviour is much, much worse; I recall a few years back a few of my neighbours started malicious gossip about a man that he was a paedophile because they thought he was odd. Their freedom of speech can go fuck itself. The same goes for corporations who cause environmental damage without necessarily directly affecting any specific person's property rights, or someone who performs an act of necrophilia in public, or someone who uses binnoculars to spy on someone while they're getting undressed. Compare this to the 'evil' of the man who uses force to rectify these situations: no, we shall not tolerate unadulterated free speech, nor shall we allow corporations to destroy the planet.

You can't always deal with human behaviour wholesale, i.e. using general principles (a priori).

Only the former can legitimately be countered by force

Prove it.

It is impossible to give different ethical belief systems equal representation. For one thing, some belief systems are mutually contradictory.

That's kind of the point of equal representation: where two people's ethical systems conflict, you form some form of legal compromise or otherwise, and that is negotiated by the harm principle. However, in your system ethical systems are given disproportionate representation according to wealth and capital.

Your twisting my point here, I really shouldn't have to spell it out: if no ethical system is right and you want to 'negotiate' that fact, then the only logical conclusion can be to give each man and woman an equal opportunity to live by their diverse ethical beliefs.

I am proposing a different approach. This approach, often known as the Non Aggression Principle, I would phrase as:

Yes I know what NAP is, as I have read it about a million times now. There is no reason to believe it is a better approach than the harm principle.

[Eran]

I have no idea what you are saying, if I harm someone through non-coercive means it is still purposeful human action. How are you defining natural forces?

If you harm somebody without violating their property rights through physical invasion of their property, you are in the clear - you are not a criminal, and force cannot be legitimately used against you.

If you harmed a person through violating their property rights, (proportionate) force can be used against you (or your property) to try and restore.

You can't always deal with human behaviour wholesale, i.e. using general principles (a priori)

Society must adopt general principles (aka "laws") to govern human behaviour. You are not really arguing for lack of rules, are you?

I agree with you that the harm caused by non-coersive action may well be greater than that caused by coersive action. However, I still strongly believe in the principle that society ought not sanction the use of force to counter the former. This is not to say that society is helpless. Rather, that non-coersive means should be used to counter non-coersive harm.

Setting aside the question of environmental damage (which, to count as actual damage, must effect somebody's enjoyment of natural resources), and look at the other examples you give.

1. Malicious gossip can never be prohibited. It cannot even be easily defined. Ultimately, a policy that allows the use of force to prohibit some forms of speech will be abused. You can see that most easily with England's current defamation laws, running amok.

2. Performing necrophilia "in public" is only an issue because public spaces are not properly owned. As soon as they become privately owned, the question of prohibiting necrophilia will become a question for the owner of the spaces to decide. I am sure virtually all would prohibit it, without thereby injuring anybody's property rights.

3. Spying using binoculars again begs the question of where the spying takes place. In general, it is up to people to take reasonable measures to protect their privacy. Like drawing curtains across windows visible from other people's property.

Prove it.

Don't be silly. I already agreed no normative assertion can be proven. I assume, for example, that you oppose slavery. Can you "prove" that slavery is wrong?

In saying "only the former can legitimately be countered by force" I am expressing my view (shared, I believe, by most libertarians).

However, in your system ethical systems are given disproportionate representation according to wealth and capital.

Not really. Wealth and capital are themselves the result of free choices people make. Nobody can become wealthy in a free society without enjoying the accumulated property freely given them by their fellow humans.

By buying a loaf of bread, I am effectively saying "in exchange for that bread, I am happy to allow you, the baker, to become the owner of my $1, to do with as you please, since I value the loaf of bread more than I do my ability to do with the $1 as I please.

When you stop and think about how wealthy people become wealthy (in a free society - no cronies allowed) you will see that they are, in effect, acting as "agents" for others.

The conceptual starting point is one of perfect equality. From that point, property accumulates based on countless decisions of members of society, as they freely choose how to express their personal value scales using the property they own.

The problem with democracy is that its members expect to eat the cake and have it too - use their wealth to purchase things, and then still retain residual claim over their wealth (through the political system) to try and use it (again) to express their ethical preferences.

There is no reason to believe it is a better approach than the harm principle.

The harm principle is completely unworkable. Please try to formulate it in a way that doesn't obviously and immediately results in highly non-intuitive conclusions you too would object to.

For one thing, harm can never be quantified. If action X causes harm to person A, and the prohibition of X harms person B, how can anybody tell which harm is greater?

If Susan is courted by both Abe and Bill, and she prefers Abe, her rejection may well cause huge harm to Bill. He is madly and love, and would rather die than be rejected. Susan's preference to Abe is marginal, while Abe is not nearly as bothered. By the harm principle, should we compel Susan to go out with Bill? If not, why not?

[Sceptic]

Society must adopt general principles (aka "laws") to govern human behaviour. You are not really arguing for lack of rules, are you?

No, I'm saying you can't formulate a bunch of abstract a priori rules to govern human conduct, you have to account for all the different variables, a posteriori. It's almost annoying that you won't even try to think in this way.

1. Malicious gossip can never be prohibited. It cannot even be easily defined. Ultimately, a policy that allows the use of force to prohibit some forms of speech will be abused. You can see that most easily with England's current defamation laws, running amok.

2. Performing necrophilia "in public" is only an issue because public spaces are not properly owned. As soon as they become privately owned, the question of prohibiting necrophilia will become a question for the owner of the spaces to decide. I am sure virtually all would prohibit it, without thereby injuring anybody's property rights.

3. Spying using binoculars again begs the question of where the spying takes place. In general, it is up to people to take reasonable measures to protect their privacy. Like drawing curtains across windows visible from other people's property.

All of these things would definitely happen and more. Ways to fuck up a person's life through non-coercive means are as creative as there are people.

Take a look at this, you only have to read one or two of the examples the author illustrates: http://images.jeelchristine.multiply.mu ... d=96310600

On the other hand, using direct force is obvious and far more easy to detect, so I'd go as far to say it's actually less of a problem.

Don't be silly. I already agreed no normative assertion can be proven.

Yet it is normative assertions we are debating.

The dialectic is so obvious:

1.Ethics are subjective.
2. In your own words, 'Diversity of values creates the need to agree on a basic set of rules that ... respects individual choices without imposing the values of some (even the majority) on others.'

But you make it sound like our agreement finishes after point one when in fact I will happily concede to you point two. Yet, ironically you consistently deviate from point two when you make statements like:

'I would argue that your best and most consistent route is to adopt [NAP]'

or

'I suggest that we divide the physical world into "spheres of influence" such that every person can be protected from physical invasion of their corner of the world'

Can't you see that, in your own words, a 'basic set of rules that ... respects individual choices' is one that removes all MATERIAL constraints on individual choices? Can't you see that this concept is impossible to obtain absolutely because there will always be such constraints and that one can only approximate this concept and that this is the whole goal of politics? It's so obvious, it is smacking you in the face but you are far too buried away in your a priori reasoning and axioms to notice.

Not really. Wealth and capital are themselves the result of free choices people make. Nobody can become wealthy in a free society without enjoying the accumulated property freely given them by their fellow humans...When you stop and think about how wealthy people become wealthy (in a free society - no cronies allowed) you will see that they are, in effect, acting as "agents" for others. The conceptual starting point is one of perfect equality.

So you deny the influence that the material environment of the hierarchy of wealth and capital have on individual choices? Do you think that somebody growing up in an African slum without my or your knowledge will be able to make the same choices you or I could to remove ourselves from poverty?

p.s. I really cannot highlight the word 'material' enough.

[Eran]

No, I'm saying you can't formulate a bunch of abstract a priori rules to govern human conduct, you have to account for all the different variables, a posteriori. It's almost annoying that you won't even try to think in this way.

Not only can you do so, you must do so. Not as a normative matter, but for any society to actually remain stable.

Looking at your profile, I see, for example, reference to "Just War Theory". How do you see Just War Theory has having any content without "a bunch of abstract a priori rules to govern human conduct"?

Ways to fuck up a person's life through non-coercive means are as creative as there are people.

Sure. But ways to fuck up a person's life through coercive means don't even require creativity, and are thus open to much easier abuse.

On the other hand, using direct force is obvious and far more easy to detect, so I'd go as far to say it's actually less of a problem.

If only. Government rules and regulations all rely on the tacit threat of using force. Their effect is subtle and difficult to detect. They are a far worse problem.

For example, professional licensing is often purely motivated by protecting the interests of current professionals at the expense of both consumers and potential professionals. But that goal is hidden behind a charade of "protecting the public good". Same with protective tariffs and various forms of corporate welfare.

Government-based force is endemic. It is everywhere around us.

Can't you see that, in your own words, a 'basic set of rules that ... respects individual choices' is one that removes all MATERIAL constraints on individual choices?

Removing material constraints on individual choices is totally impossible, as we both agree.

The solution is not to try and approximate the fantasy of having no material constraints. In fact, many of our ethical choices are precisely related to handling material constraints. They will be meaningless without them.


Without being too abstract, let me give you a concrete example of what I have in mind.

All human societies care for their weak members to some extent. In the modern world, charity and government welfare are two forms of expressing such care.

Government welfare entails a majority (in an ideal democracy) imposing its vision as to who should help whom, how and how much, on everybody else.

In a free society, individuals are most welcome to help others, but are only able to use their own resources to do so.

Helping others is just one value amongst many. It has no privileged status relative to values associated with helping one's family, helping non-humans (e.g. through environmental conservation or vegetarianism), one's relationship to God, or promotion of science and arts.

Yet while current-day mainstream abhors the idea of the majority imposing their religious views on the minority, it has no objection to having the majority's views on charity imposed on the minority. The only "justification" for that attitude is one associated with power, namely that the majority can control sufficient force to impose its will.

[Sceptic]

Looking at your profile, I see, for example, reference to "Just War Theory". How do you see Just War Theory has having any content without "a bunch of abstract a priori rules to govern human conduct"?

You treat each circumstance as different. Universal rules do not need to be general. We formulate general rules because we want to deal in wholesale, not retail rather than creating a bunch of ad hoc rules. But at the same time, we have to bend these general rules. You see this, not just in the political realm but everyday life: I might roll a spliff slightly differently to normal if I pack it with too much tobacco.

Sometimes, you just have to make things up as you go along. Otherwise, compromise and balance the two sources of knowledge.

Sure. But ways to fuck up a person's life through coercive means don't even require creativity, and are thus open to much easier abuse.

...

If only. Government rules and regulations all rely on the tacit threat of using force. Their effect is subtle and difficult to detect. They are a far worse problem.

So you see, even here you've pointed out exceptions to the norm. There's too much to experience in this world, you can't think up general rules for any and every situation.

The solution is not to try and approximate the fantasy of having no material constraints.

Why not?

In fact, many of our ethical choices are precisely related to handling material constraints. They will be meaningless without them.

What you are now saying is that material constraints should be 'dealt' with (i.e. eliminated) in the voluntary and not the political realm. Why?

Moral values = empathy
Justice = fairness

The idea of property rights for justice is a huge abstraction. We do things because they are good; because we value them. So no reason to respect property rights unless we value them and not everyone does.

[Eran]

Would you agree that it is wrong to punish innocents?

Would you view that as a universal rule? General rule? Or perhaps you would want to consider, on a case by case basis, whether an innocent person should or should not be punished?

[Sceptic]

Would you agree that it is wrong to punish innocents?

Would you view that as a universal rule? General rule?

General rule, not universal. In fact, I'm not even sure there can ever be a universal rule, not even this (use of word 'sure' highlighted to emphasis that this is not a dogmatic statement). Experience is infinite.

Or perhaps you would want to consider, on a case by case basis, whether an innocent person should or should not be punished?

Yes.

e.g. collateral damage.

[Eran]

I think you and I have slightly different ideas regarding the notion of "rules".

A rule is not a universal law that accepts no exceptions. It is a rule that guides human action under normal circumstances.

Take my NAP rule, for example. I do recognize that emergencies exist in which the rule ought to be violated. A life-threatening emergency could easily cause me to break into another person's property without their permission.

Would accepting emergency exceptions to the rule help you recognize it as something you might subscribe to?

For example, the US is operating under a general rule that elected officials may only take office after being legally elected. As a rule, the US doesn't accept a military coup as a legitimate means of determining the identity of the next president.

Do you accept that rule?

[Sceptic]

I think you and I have slightly different ideas regarding the notion of "rules".

A rule is not a universal law that accepts no exceptions.

Hence my distinction between universal rules and general rules

Take my NAP rule, for example. I do recognize that emergencies exist in which the rule ought to be violated. A life-threatening emergency could easily cause me to break into another person's property without their permission.

Or a life-threatening pandemic on a national scale could easily lead to collective instances of said property violation.

Would accepting emergency exceptions to the rule help you recognize it as something you might subscribe to?

Ad hoc, yes. But there will always be more variables in an a posteriori world.

[Eran]

How do you feel about the rule "obey the law"?

Since you don't believe in universal rules, you must reject "obey the law" as a universal rule. Therefore, you must accept exceptions to the rule, i.e. situations in which one should violate the law.

How should society treat such violations?

[Sceptic]

How do you feel about the rule "obey the law"?

Since you don't believe in universal rules, you must reject "obey the law" as a universal rule. Therefore, you must accept exceptions to the rule, i.e. situations in which one should violate the law.

What is the point of these questions? If you don't want to debate anymore then just say.

Yes, obeying the law is a general rule like any other; I would disobey it if my personal sense of right and wrong told me to do otherwise and I felt I could get away with it.

How should society treat such violations?

Depends, sometimes people who violate the law for the right reasons still need to be punished for the sake of social cohesion. Sometimes, though, pushing the boundaries is what progresses culture and society ought to stop and reflect whether their laws need changing. Maybe in those grey areas then, an appeal to higher courts can be made.

[Eran]

The reason for the questions is that it occurred to me that you (naturally, as many libertarians do too) confused NAP-as-law with NAP-as-moral-absolute.

Some (most?) libertarians think of the NAP as a moral absolute. It is wrong to initiate force. Always. Period. Your concern about the inflexibility of "universal" rules seems to reflect that perspective. It isn't mine.

I view NAP as equivalent to the Law of a normal society. It is the general rule based on which the organised, institutionalised use of force within society is governed.

However, it is not a moral absolute. First, morally, emergencies, for example, may present circumstances in which the NAP ought to be violated. Second, institutionalised response to NAP violations can and should be such that circumstances are taken into account. I will be glad to explain how my vision of an ancap criminal-justice system satisfies that requirement.



So, with NAP taken as the Law, but not as absolute moral command, how much of your earlier reservations are left intact?

[Sceptic]

The reason for the questions is that it occurred to me that you (naturally, as many libertarians do too) confused NAP-as-law with NAP-as-moral-absolute.

Yes it is an important distinction and you have explained this to me before when you distinguished between morality and justice but you know I'm a moral relativist and it is my own philosophy not to do anything unless we somehow value that course. Otherwise, you are acting within your own selfish (not self) interests (which is sometimes reasonable if the moral course of action would cause your own person extreme harm) and anything else is an abstraction. Consequence and principle are very similar indeed purely because we value the outcome, however consequence is after the fact and principle is before the fact.

First, morally, emergencies, for example, may present circumstances in which the NAP ought to be violated. Second, institutionalised response to NAP violations can and should be such that circumstances are taken into account.

But then, Eran, if you reflect this principle institutionally and on a collective, rather than individual, scale, the logical conclusion is the State because what you are saying then is that private citizens may violate NAP in extreme, lifeboat scenarios but that the legal institutions of a society may not do so out of a feeling of civic responsibility.

Also, you could not prepare (with force) for such a course of action collectively in case of a future disaster, for example a social security net if millions of people suddenly lost their jobs in a depression. If your response to this is that you can do so voluntarily, I would merely remind you that we are talking about the moral legitimacy of violating NAP.

[Eran]

it is my own philosophy not to do anything unless we somehow value that course.

I have no idea what you mean here.

But then, Eran, if you reflect this principle institutionally and on a collective, rather than individual, scale, the logical conclusion is the State because what you are saying then is that private citizens may violate NAP in extreme, lifeboat scenarios but that the legal institutions of a society may not do so out of a feeling of civic responsibility.

This is exactly what we expect of our institutions today (setting aside abuses and legislation). Individuals may violate the law in emergencies. The State may not.

My system includes a built-in mechanism against abuse, so common when politicians invoke "emergency" as an excuse for virtually any action. In an emergency, you may violate another person's property rights. But when the emergency is over, you ought to pay them back.

Thus is I break into a cabin in the mountains to save my life, I am still liable to pay for the broken window and any food I consumed. This is a little like the principle of just compensation for eminent domain confiscation, except that in a free society, the body deciding on the confiscation is not the same as the body deciding on compensation.

I believe this compensation principle is critical to stop the rampant abuse of the "emergency" principle.

[Sceptic]

I have no idea what you mean here.

Ergh substitute not do anything with follow course of action - in moral dilemnas, I'm not referring to everyday action.

This is exactly what we expect of our institutions today (setting aside abuses and legislation). Individuals may violate the law in emergencies. The State may not.

What about Theresay May's latest stunts? http://www.[No Advertsing]/blogs/staggers/2012/05/immigration-and-eu-tory-ministers-play-fire

Edit - I don't know why the link isn't allowed

My system includes a built-in mechanism against abuse, so common when politicians invoke "emergency" as an excuse for virtually any action. In an emergency, you may violate another person's property rights. But when the emergency is over, you ought to pay them back.

Again, you're forgetting about collective violations such as collateral damage, social security or national pandemic.

Even your own case presents some dangers such as, would a poor family always be enabled to steal if they were always virging on death from starvation?

[Eran]

Ergh substitute not do anything with follow course of action - in moral dilemnas, I'm not referring to everyday action.

Sorry - I am still at a loss to understand your moral philosophy. You characterise yourself as a Moral Relativist which I always took to mean something like legal positivist - whatever moral code society adopts are fine.

Is that your view? Or do you have any principles of which you are aware?

Again, you're forgetting about collective violations such as collateral damage, social security or national pandemic.

I am not forgetting. Rather, I am refusing to make a moral distinction between action of individuals, small groups or even whole nations. If it is wrong to kill an innocent person, that wrong doesn't become right just because the President says so.

I can see how collateral damage (unintended death of innocents during a war) and national pandemic can be associated with real emergencies. In such cases, the innocent victims should be compensated as much as possible.

I would also include actual natural disasters and perhaps famine.

It is much harder to see how social security can ever qualify as an emergency.

Even your own case presents some dangers such as, would a poor family always be enabled to steal if they were always virging on death from starvation?

This is where the distinction between justice and morality becomes important. As a matter of justice, stealing is stealing, and the poor family would owe compensation to whomever they stole from. Period.

As a matter of morality, I can acknowledge that feeding your family may be more important than strictly observing other people's property rights.

In "my" criminal justice system, criminal penalties are always monetary. One of the many advantages of such system is that third parties may intervene to mitigate immoral over-reach of the justice system. The poor person who stole to feed his family might be found guilty, but his fine could be paid by a well-meaning charity (ideally, of course, the family would be fed by charity well before they needed to starve). Or perhaps, bowing to public pressure, the supermarket from which the theft took place would forgive the theft.

Ultimately, though, we cannot demand that the supermarket chain adopts our moral code. They have every right to demand compensation, and it is up to those sympathising with the family to help if they wish.

[Sceptic]

Sorry - I am still at a loss to understand your moral philosophy. You characterise yourself as a Moral Relativist which I always took to mean something like legal positivist - whatever moral code society adopts are fine.

That's meta-ethical relativism, there is a subtle difference and as a moral relativist it is the factors we feel empathy towards that are relative. In essence one ought not to do the wrong thing because it will make them feel guilty. So we are all very much accountable for what we do. I emphasise the virtue of the man who stands by his principles, even if they differ from the man next to him and I emphasise the virtue of the man who stops and reflects upon his principles, questioning his own personal conception of right and wrong to see if he is the best he could possibly be. And as I see it, rigorous questioning and philosophical inquiry into one's own moral beliefs would lead any man to the conclusions I am purporting. The real question is, do you want to be the best you can be?

Morality is an artificial construct, a priori so the key to realising it is through reason. But there is meaning to it that cannot be conveyed through words alone. Thankfully language can convey pathos, logos and ethos through rhetoric. In essence, I would make emotional appeals to my audience using this approach that I would never make through the meta-ethical relativist paradigm - in which I would take a strictly legal positivist approach. While there may be no inherent moral belief system ingrained into the universe, thankfully it's not necessary because human society has it's own seperate dimension.

I am not forgetting. Rather, I am refusing to make a moral distinction between action of individuals, small groups or even whole nations.

...

I can see how collateral damage (unintended death of innocents during a war) and national pandemic can be associated with real emergencies.

Basically what I am trying to get you to concede to is greater violations of NAP in which sometimes compensation is just simply impossible. I am by no means denying that the collective scales I am referring to comprise of the sum of individual decisions but that those individual decisions are often righteous and there can be no reason to deviate from their principles for such abstract reasons.

Ultimately, though, we cannot demand that the supermarket chain adopts our moral code. They have every right to demand compensation, and it is up to those sympathising with the family to help if they wish.

And this is the point at which it becomes abstracted because you concede the moral superiority of stealing in this case but you sacrifice the inherent value of this proper conduct for the arbitrary Libertarian definition of boundaries.

I'm saying that there is something more to be valued here (life?).