- 16 Nov 2012 10:22
#14107890
What makes you think that?
Of course it is. Just because the majority doesn't realise it doesn't mean injustice isn't being perpetrated. I (and I suspect you too) have my own standards of right and wrong. Just because the majority believes something to be right doesn't make it so, does it?
There is a difference between circular definitions and reliance on axioms. My definitions aren't circular. I defined The NAP in terms of non-political concept such as "force" and "projects".
There is circularity in the reference to "peaceful". A peaceful project is one which hasn't violated the NAP. That circularity is necessary and isn't problematic, as the peaceful (or not) nature of the project is determined at a chronologically-prior point to the use of force against it.
The right to be left alone, the topic of your question, isn't one based on definitions. It is based on moral judgements. All moral reasonings ultimately end with an unprovable claims (just as all mathematical theorems ultimately end in unprovable axioms). The NAP is such unprovable claim. I can appeal to people's intuitions, and discuss the consequences of adherence to it, but I can't prove it.
That doesn't make it circular.
But at least I can point to a coherent moral statement upon which I base my ethical system. Can you do the same?
Restricting it to property rights would beget a vile society because property distributution would effectively circumscribe individual liberty.
What makes you think that?
Indeed, which is no violent assault upon you meantime.
Of course it is. Just because the majority doesn't realise it doesn't mean injustice isn't being perpetrated. I (and I suspect you too) have my own standards of right and wrong. Just because the majority believes something to be right doesn't make it so, does it?
resorting to circular definitions non-Libertarians don't recognise
There is a difference between circular definitions and reliance on axioms. My definitions aren't circular. I defined The NAP in terms of non-political concept such as "force" and "projects".
There is circularity in the reference to "peaceful". A peaceful project is one which hasn't violated the NAP. That circularity is necessary and isn't problematic, as the peaceful (or not) nature of the project is determined at a chronologically-prior point to the use of force against it.
The right to be left alone, the topic of your question, isn't one based on definitions. It is based on moral judgements. All moral reasonings ultimately end with an unprovable claims (just as all mathematical theorems ultimately end in unprovable axioms). The NAP is such unprovable claim. I can appeal to people's intuitions, and discuss the consequences of adherence to it, but I can't prove it.
That doesn't make it circular.
But at least I can point to a coherent moral statement upon which I base my ethical system. Can you do the same?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.