A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

AJ:

If so, why are the only two alternatives that the mother has absolute control OR everyone has absolute control? How did the option that no one has absolute control over the child - no one has the right to end the child's life for an arbitrary reason - get ruled out?

Because that's nonsense. Why would two parties get into a dispute over things they have no control of?

AJ:

Your position seems to hinge on the fact that only the two options you present can be ethically justified. Can I ask 1) How you came to realize that those two options could be ethically justified, and 2) How you came to realize that no other positions could be ethically justified? Particularly, by what ethical starting principles did you reach those conclusions?

Universality.

Stranger:

AJ:

If so, why are the only two alternatives that the mother has absolute control OR everyone has absolute control? How did the option that no one has absolute control over the child - no one has the right to end the child's life for an arbitrary reason - get ruled out?

Because that's nonsense. Why would two parties get into a dispute over things they have no control of?

Why is it either absolute control or no control? Why not limited control?

Stranger:

AJ:

Particularly, by what ethical starting principles did you reach those conclusions?

Universality.

What is universal about the two options you presented?

And, why do you feel this is a foundational ethical requirement?

AJ:

 

And, why do you feel this is a foundational ethical requirement?

I don't "feel" that way. It's the foundation of ethics and science in general.

You didn't really answer any of the questions. That's fine, but is that really how you want to leave it?

AJ:

You didn't really answer any of the questions. That's fine, but is that really how you want to leave it?

I'm not in the semantics game. If you disagree, spell out your disagreement.

On universality, I don't disagree, I just don't get what you mean.

On ownership, I think I did spell it out: Why not limited ownership? Is there some reason ownership has to be all-or-nothing, even with respect to children?

Aster_Lacnala:

Spideynw:

As such, if I wanted to break someone of the habit of smoking, could I not justify imprisoning the person against the other person's will?

Certainly, you could.  And likely, when they were freed and actually able to take you to court, you would be royally screwed.

But it is moral is it not?  If it is moral, why would I be royally screwed?

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey:

If you thought your neighbor would sue you for rescuing him and if you thought you would have to pay a million dollars if you did, do you still think you would try to rescue him regardless of how "moral" you feel your action is?

Actually, yes.  I would.  That said, if he developed a reputation for suing people who saved his life, I might well be the only one who would.

So you have a million dollars to spare?

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey:

Really?  You do not think I can argue it is on the child's behalf?  Do you want to bet on that?

Bet on your actions?

No, do you want to bet that I cannot argue that killing or having sex with a child would be beneficial to the child?

Aster_Lacnala:

I'm sure you could pose some retarded argument that it was in the best interests of the child.

Just like you pose retarded arguments that giving a bath to a child that has rights is moral?  Yes, I could.

Aster_Lacnala:

In the case of rape, the child taking you to court when it became able to would disabuse you of that notion.

Assuming the child has rights, which is what is at debate here.  You have not shown that they do.

Aster_Lacnala:

In the case of murder... I think in that case, I'd argue that you effectively abandoned the child (since what is in your care is no longer a child).  As such, anyone has the right to homestead the child, and as their new legal guardians they have the right to prosecute you for your actions against the child.

So if you bury your property, it is not your property anymore?  What if I bury my property on my land?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Spideynw:

Really?  You do not think I can argue it is on the child's behalf?  Do you want to bet on that?

You can, but it will just be riddled with nonsense.

Well of course.  All morality is subjective.  So it will be riddled with just as much nonsense as those that argue that giving a bath to a being with rights without consent is moral.

You're again confusing subjective ontological with subjective epistemic. Please STOP doing that.

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

Spideynw:

As such, if I wanted to break someone of the habit of smoking, could I not justify imprisoning the person against the other person's will?

Certainly, you could.  And likely, when they were freed and actually able to take you to court, you would be royally screwed.

But it is moral is it not?  If it is moral, why would I be royally screwed?

It is a question of balancing morals.  Which is more wrong - to violate someone's rights or stand by while they are dying?  I believe letting them die is more wrong.  Which is more immoral?  To violate someone's rights or let them take risky behaviors?  Here, I would say violating their rights.  However, you would be screwed because THEY don't value things the same way.  Unless they were more grateful to you for your help in overcoming their addiction, they would sue you.  I never said that you didn't have to face the legal consequences of an action, even a moral one.  If they choose to bring you to court, they can.

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey:

If you thought your neighbor would sue you for rescuing him and if you thought you would have to pay a million dollars if you did, do you still think you would try to rescue him regardless of how "moral" you feel your action is?

Actually, yes.  I would.  That said, if he developed a reputation for suing people who saved his life, I might well be the only one who would.

So you have a million dollars to spare?

I sure don't.  But a person's current financial status is not an indicator of their valuation of things.  If I was totally broke, I wouldn't value everything at $0.  So regardless of my financial position, I value the life of someone who is neither criminal nor suicidal more than I value a million dollars.  My actions reflect this.  If they choose to sue me... well, you can't get blood from a stone.  Guess I'd be an outlaw.

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey:

Really?  You do not think I can argue it is on the child's behalf?  Do you want to bet on that?

Bet on your actions?

No, do you want to bet that I cannot argue that killing or having sex with a child would be beneficial to the child?

And again, I'm sure you could argue that, if you wanted.  Hopefully, you can't argue it and be intellectually honest with yourself, or I fear for your family, but your ability to argue it isn't an issue.  It is really up to the child, when they become able to press their claim.  If they felt it was beneficial, they won't sue you.  If you kill them, obviously they cannot press charges, but I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers to do it for them.

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

I'm sure you could pose some retarded argument that it was in the best interests of the child.

Just like you pose retarded arguments that giving a bath to a child that has rights is moral?  Yes, I could.

Fine.  Give me an argument for the NAP that is totally devoid of normative statements.  If you can't, then your argument is rooted in morality as well.

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

In the case of rape, the child taking you to court when it became able to would disabuse you of that notion.

Assuming the child has rights, which is what is at debate here.  You have not shown that they do.

You have not shown that they do not.  You asked how we were to know what was okay and what was not in caring for a child with rights, which I answered..  If you are looking for a purely logical proof that a child has rights, there isn't one.  There is also no purely logical proof that you have rights.

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

In the case of murder... I think in that case, I'd argue that you effectively abandoned the child (since what is in your care is no longer a child).  As such, anyone has the right to homestead the child, and as their new legal guardians they have the right to prosecute you for your actions against the child.

So if you bury your property, it is not your property anymore?  What if I bury my property on my land?

You are assuming the child's body was your property to begin with.  Since I disagree, this question is pointless.  If I kill you and bury you on my land, are you now my property?

Spideynw:

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey:

Also, what is the difference between me actively killing my child or letting the child starve to death?

I personally don't see a difference between letting your child starve to death and actively killing it, but that's only because after this thread I finally realized I can't hold the NAP as my highest moral value.  (Congratz, Spidey, you were instrumental in firmyl rooting me in minarchy, where before I was on the fence.)

You are welcome.  I am not here to convince anyone to become an anarchist.  Either you are logical or you are not.  If not, there is nothing I can do about it.

I tend to be very logical.  I just don't accept the same starting axioms you do, so my logic brings me to different conclusions.

I think everyone here is, for the most part, being quite logical in their deductions from their ethical axioms - that's the scary part. It seems that starting with a few (or just one) normative axioms deemed to be absolutely, universally correct and reasoning with flawless logic will always lead eventually to some absurd or abhorrent result, requiring "interpretations" that render the supposed absoluteness and universality of the axioms meaningless. I cannot prove this, but I challenge anyone who disputes this to provide a counterexample.

AJ:

I cannot prove this, but I challenge anyone who disputes this to provide a counterexample

what must the counterexample show?!?

AJ,

Logical deductions are not wrong.  They are logical.  It is the 'interpretations' that vary.  You seem to usually or always confuse between metaphysics and epistemology.  What is - is.  What that 'is' - is, that varies.  AJ another clue that should be obvious is the heavy debate on this topic.  When a topic is as heavily debated as this one is, especially on such core issues to the varying theoreticals, it is obvious that this topic is not settled in the least as to what is correct.  This topic is easily an elephant with various blind people touching it in different spots - not getting the whole picture of what it is they are touching, to use a common scientific analogy.

*A good argument does not reject logic, episteme, metaphysics, etc....  A good theory is open to all valid ways of verification of itself.  It's the pinnacle charm of what science is.

nirgrahamUK:

what must the counterexample show?!?

It doesn't need to show anything; it would just need to be an example where taking a few (or just one) normative axioms deemed to be absolutely, universally correct and reasoning from them in a logically valid manner has not yet led to an absurd result (that you are aware of) that requires "interpretations" that render the supposed absoluteness and universality of the axioms meaningless. Then for as long as no one can show how valid logical deduction from those axioms leads to an absurd result, the counterexample would stand. For obvious reasons, the axiom or set of axioms should be one that is known to libertarians as providing an absolute foundation for making ethical decisions.

These terms seem heavily stacked against my assertion, because all one who disagrees need do is produce additional sets of axioms until I and/or people who agree with me tire of looking for absurd conclusions and proving that the logic reaching them is sound. The vagueness of language in general makes my side of the challenge many times more difficult as well. It's like a game that I don't expect to be able to win (indeed, as long as new axioms are suggested I cannot), but I think the process will be illustrative.

I was thinking last night, there is a possibility we haven't considered, and one that was quickly rejected that shouldn't be.

First, does everything consist of property?  If we allow the existence of things which are not property, and thus cannot be rightfully owned, then it is very plausible that humans fall into this category.  I have not considered yet either the implications of this, nor how you would differentiate - it is more half a thought than a full thought.

In cases of collective property, you can have a tragedy of the commons, but this isn't always true.  Corporations are built around the idea of collective property.  The key difference is that a corporation has a board of directors and officers to manage the property.  The owners choose who manages it, and in fact cannot use it themselves as that would infringe upon other peoples' property.  If I own a share of American Airlines stock, I own part of every plane, but I don't get to fly for free.

Taken to the example of children, could children be said to be collectively owned by the community?  In which case, children are property, but the parent isn't the sole owner, merely the manager, and may lose this position if he/she mismanages the property.  I don't know that I hold this view, but it would seem to solve the moral dilemmas that have been brought up.

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey, let me attempt to answer your question.  I believe that children are self owners and so, yes, it is a violation of their rights to do things such as bathe them, feed them, clothe them, etc. without their consent.

He just said it is a criminal act to feed my child.  Anyone else see something wrong with this, or is it just me?

You posed an argument saying it was not criminal to rape and murder your children, and you have a problem with my saying it is criminal to feed them?

AJ:

nirgrahamUK:

what must the counterexample show?!?

It doesn't need to show anything; it would just need to be an example where taking a few (or just one) normative axioms deemed to be absolutely, universally correct and reasoning from them in a logically valid manner has not yet led to an absurd result (that you are aware of) that requires "interpretations" that render the supposed absoluteness and universality of the axioms meaningless. Then for as long as no one can show how valid logical deduction from those axioms leads to an absurd result, the counterexample would stand. For obvious reasons, the axiom or set of axioms should be one that is known to libertarians as providing an absolute foundation for making ethical decisions.

These terms seem heavily stacked against my assertion, because all one who disagrees need do is produce additional sets of axioms until I and/or people who agree with me tire of looking for absurd conclusions and proving that the logic reaching them is sound. The vagueness of language in general makes my side of the challenge many times more difficult as well. It's like a game that I don't expect to be able to win (indeed, as long as new axioms are suggested I cannot), but I think the process will be illustrative.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/12814/282227.aspx#282227

Care to weigh in on the papers?

Aster_Lacnala:

First, does everything consist of property? 

If it is physical & scarce.

Aster_Lacnala:

If we allow the existence of things which are not property, and thus cannot be rightfully owned, then it is very plausible that humans fall into this category.

No, it's not.

See Hoppe on this: discussed in The Scarcity of Time, notes on Hoppe's lecture regarding scarcity, and Hoppe's TSC:

Let us start with an elucidation of the precondition necessary for the concept of property to emerge.1 For a concept of property to arise, there must be a scarcity of goods. Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need for property. If, let us say, due to some paradisiac superabundance of bananas, my present consumption of bananas does not in any way reduce my own future supply (possible consumption) of bananas, nor the present or the future supply of bananas for any other person, then the assignment of property rights, here with respect to bananas, would be superfluous. To develop the concept of property, it is necessary for goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use of these goods can possibly arise. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning rights of exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources.2 It does not need much comment to see that there is indeed scarcity of goods, of all sorts of goods, everywhere, and the need for property rights is thus evident. As a matter of fact, even if we were to assume that we lived in the Garden of Eden, where there was a superabun dance of everything needed not only to sustain one’s life but to indulge in every possible comfort by simply stretching out one’s hand, the concept of property would necessarily have to evolve. For even under these “ideal” circumstances, every person’s physical body would still be a scarce resource and thus the need for the establishment of property rules, i.e., rules regarding people’s bodies, would exist. One is not used to thinking of one’s own body in terms of a scarce good, but in imagining the most ideal situation one could ever hope for, the Garden of Eden, it becomes possible to realize [p. 9] that one’s body is indeed the prototype of a scarce good for the use of which property rights, i.e., rights of exclusive ownership, somehow have to be established, in order to avoid clashes.

2. Incidentally, the normative character of the concept of property also makes the sufficient precondition for its emergence as a concept clear: Besides scarcity “rationality of agents” must exist, i.e., the agents must be capable of communicating, discussing, arguing, and in particular, they must be able to engage in an argumentation of normative problems. If there were no such capability of communication, normative concepts simply would not be of any use. We do not, for instance, try to avoid clashes over the use of a given scarce resource with, let us say, an elephant, by defining property rights, for we cannot argue with the elephant and hence arrive at an agreement on rights of ownership. The avoidance of future clashes in such a case is exclusively a technical (as opposed to a normative) problem.

Aster_Lacnala:

Corporations are built around the idea of collective property.

No they aren't.

Aster_Lacnala:

Taken to the example of children, could children be said to be collectively owned by the community? 

No.

Aster_Lacnala:

I don't know that I hold this view, but it would seem to solve the moral dilemmas that have been brought up.

Except it doesn't.

I'm not going to debate the concept of property - like I said, it was only half an idea.  However, I would debate that corporations are collective property.  If there are 100 shares of X, Inc. and I own a share, I own 1% of X, Inc.  But you can't point to any given part of X, Inc. and say that is the 1% I own.  Rather, I own 1% of every part, collectively with the other shareholders.

Aster_Lacnala:

Spidey, let me attempt to answer your question.  I believe that children are self owners and so, yes, it is a violation of their rights to do things such as bathe them, feed them, clothe them, etc. without their consent.

Spideynw:

He just said it is a criminal act to feed my child.  Anyone else see something wrong with this, or is it just me?

Aster_Lacnala:

You posed an argument saying it was not criminal to rape and murder your children, and you have a problem with my saying it is criminal to feed them?

You are both wrong. Children are potential self owners, but until the child "demonstrates that he has them [full rights of self-ownership] in nature",  the parents have first claim to "trustee" or "guardianship rights", which involves overseeing the child's growth - "It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc." - Which would be a blatant violation of the "trustee" / "guardianship" of the child, is it not?

Feeding, bathing, clothing them - would not be a violation of  the "trustee" / "guardianship". Since that actually constitutes taking care of the child. There are no positive obligations on the parents however, but if they choose to abandon the baby, they must actually do so. Throwing your jumper into the closet does not constitute abandonment.

Can I ask.. have either of you read Block's paper?

I have seen no obvious axioms presented thus far AJ. Can two axiom's be contradictory? Spidey has stated several times that his position is self evident. If both our positions were built on axioms however this thread would not have gone on for 14 pages. I feel like some have abused the term 'axiom' to push an opinion or agenda. As such the word has become diluted. THan again maybe my understanding of axiom's are wrong. I never considerd opinions as being axiomatic though.

What were the two axioms presented for the arguments on this thread?

Conza88:

Can I ask.. have either of you read Block's paper?

No.  And that is relevant how?  Because he can theorize how the majority will rule in an anarchist society?  He completely debunks the idea that markets provide to every person, not just the majority?  Does he explain how the abortion debate is resolved?

Conza88:

You are both wrong.

Spideynw:

For those of you that think small children have rights, could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?  You all seem to claim that a parent killing or having sex with a small child is violating the child's rights.  Is killing someone or having sex with someone always wrong?  If not, then why is killing or having sex with children always wrong?  Is it because they do not consent to it?  If it is because they do not consent to it, what do they ever consent to?  If they never consent to anything, then does that not mean that everything a parent does to a child is violating it's rights?  I am just very confused at how you determine when a child's rights have been violated.

I am still waiting for your answers to these questions.

wiki:

The stock or capital stock of a business entity represents the original capital paid or invested into the business by its founders. It serves as a security for the creditors of a business since it cannot be withdrawn to the detriment of the creditors. Stock is distinct from the property and the assets of a business which may fluctuate in quantity and value.

you own 1% of the market price of the assets should the company be liquidated (after the creditors have been paid off), and 1% of any dividends. you don't own 1% of every material thing related to the business.

Conza88:

He wouldn't need to anyway.

Children and Rights - Rothbard

If anyone hasn't read that yet... ya'll need to.

Nice spike.

Aster_Lacnala:

Taken to the example of children, could children be said to be collectively owned by the community?  In which case, children are property, but the parent isn't the sole owner, merely the manager, and may lose this position if he/she mismanages the property.  I don't know that I hold this view, but it would seem to solve the moral dilemmas that have been brought up.

That only shifts the problem to a different problem, which is how you define "the community". Under ethics standards that would have to be all other humans in the world. Obviously many of these humans have different ideas of how children are "mismanaged". The fabric of society would collapse into chaos.

Spideynw:

I am still waiting for your answers to these questions.

Strawman. 

And we have pointed out that since you can't reconcile the problems you've created you would rather just do away with children's rights all together.

Conza88:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/12814/282227.aspx#282227

Care to weigh in on the papers?

Just the axioms, please, if there are any. If not, then my comment may be entirely inapplicable to those papers. My comment only applies to what it says it applies to - sets of absolute, universal axioms.

Spideynw:

could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?

Moral Arguments.

Spideynw:

Is killing someone or having sex with someone always wrong?

No.

Spideynw:

If not, then why is killing or having sex with children always wrong?

Killing isn't always. The same rules apply, you could kill a child in self defense. Sex requires a 2 party consent to be moral.

Spideynw:

If it is because they do not consent to it, what do they ever consent to?

They consent to eating when they are hungry, sleeping when they are tired, playing when they want to play. To go against their consent requires a moral argument.

Spideynw:

If they never consent to anything, then does that not mean that everything a parent does to a child is violating it's rights?

Just most things, people have no idea how to define parenthood it would seem.

filc:

I have seen no obvious axioms presented thus far AJ. Can two axiom's be contradictory? Spidey has stated several times that his position is self evident. If both our positions were built on axioms however this thread would not have gone on for 14 pages. I feel like some have abused the term 'axiom' to push an opinion or agenda. As such the word has become diluted. THan again maybe my understanding of axiom's are wrong. I never considerd opinions as being axiomatic though.

What were the two axioms presented for the arguments on this thread?

If no axioms are at play here, then my comment doesn't apply. However, for example, I think a number of people take the NAP as an absolute, universal axiom (maybe not Spideynw), with a certain definition or definitions for "aggression."

With regard to the NAP (for instance), what I'm basically saying is: To the extent we pin down the definition of aggression, we will arrive at absurd results that I suspect most people would find morally abhorrent, and to the extent that we don't pin down the definition, any claim to absoluteness or universality seems hollow.

I get what you are saying. The NAP is useless without a clear definition of property. So I think the definition of property is what is disputed here. If the definition of property changes arbitrarily it changes the application of the NAP.

twistedbydsign99:

Spideynw:

could you please outline how a parent knows if he is violating the child's supposed rights?

Moral Arguments.

That is a non-answer.

twistedbydsign99:

Spideynw:

If not, then why is killing or having sex with children always wrong?

Killing isn't always.

Killing a child is not always wrong?  That is what I asked.

twistedbydsign99:

The same rules apply, you could kill a child in self defense.

When has a baby ever assaulted someone?  Self defense is not what is at issue here.  What is at issue is whether you can kill your baby legally.

twistedbydsign99:

Spideynw:

If it is because they do not consent to it, what do they ever consent to?

They consent to eating when they are hungry, sleeping when they are tired, playing when they want to play.

Do babies/children consent to being locked in a room?  Or having their diapers changed?  Or being bathed?  Or being strapped into a car?

twistedbydsign99:

To go against their consent requires a moral argument.

So consent is irrelevant?  As long as I can "morally" justify it, then it is justified?  I am sure I could morally justify killing brown people living in the Middle East.  I guess they are shit out of luck right, since I can "morally" justify away their right to life?

filc:

I get what you are saying. The NAP is useless without a clear definition of property. So I think the definition of property is what is disputed here. If the definition of property changes arbitrarily it changes the application of the NAP.

So you will deny the fact that humans start out with no greater reasoning abilities than animals, and later on as we grow and develop, we gain reasoning abilities?  Because that is what you are calling "arbitrary".

Spideynw:

That is a non-answer.[

Its not a non answer, its the only answer. How else could you know right or wrong without a moral argument. The only real choice a person has to their moral arguments is if they are going the subjective or objective route, and the consequences that follow.

Spideynw:

hat is at issue is whether you can kill your baby legally.

Yea I think abortion is legal. At least in my state it is up to some time in the pregnancy. After its born its illegal for sure.

Spideynw:

Do babies/children consent to being locked in a room?  Or having their diapers changed?  Or being bathed?  Or being strapped into a car?

That was my second point, anything that is against their will such as these things require a moral argument to perform them.

Spideynw:

So consent is irrelevant?  As long as I can "morally" justify it, then it is justified?  I am sure I could morally justify killing brown people living in the Middle East.  I guess they are shit out of luck right, since I can "morally" justify away their right to life?

Ok then lets hear it. On what grounds should you go kill brown people living in the middle east.

 

filc:

Spideynw:

I am still waiting for your answers to these questions.

Strawman. 

Do you know what a strawman is?  Because waiting for an answer is not one of them.

filc:

And we have pointed out that since you can't reconcile the problems you've created you would rather just do away with children's rights all together.

What problems?  Humans sleep.  Big deal.  Is stealing an apple as bad as stealing a car?  Oh the arbitrariness!  Stealing should always be stealing right?  Regardless of what is stolen, otherwise it is arbitrary.

If a human sleeps for too long, does the human lose its rights?  Of course, we all enter the eternal slumber of sleep called death, and I don't think anyone here argues that is arbitrary.  Wait, using your logic, it would be!

filc:

I get what you are saying. The NAP is useless without a clear definition of property. So I think the definition of property is what is disputed here. If the definition of property changes arbitrarily it changes the application of the NAP.

Exactly. From different vantage points, the definition that needs to be nailed down is variously "aggression," "property," "ownership," or something else. If it's not nailed down, there's no purpose in treating the NAP and similar principles as absolute/universal statements of ethics. If it is nailed down, humans can reason from it using valid or invalid logic. If they use invalid logic, others can debate and correct them.

That is well and good, but the question is whether I am correct that valid logical reasoning from any such axioms will inevitably lead to absurd/abhorrent results. Some might say I'm "charging that such theories paint human interactions with an impossibly broad brush, bound to gloss over particulars...which in moral terms equates to condoning atrocities."

AJ:

That is well and good, but the question is whether I am correct that valid logical reasoning from any such axioms will inevitably lead to absurd/abhorrent results.

Killing animals is abhorrent to some and two men having sex is abhorrent to others.  So what?  Does that mean it should be illegal?

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

(From Wikipedia).

Just so we are clear, the NAP is not an axiom.  It is a principle.  The fact that it is dependent on definitions is proof of that.  Furthermore, it is a moral argument - there is an understood "Violating rights is immoral" underpinning every argument relying on the NAP.

Spidey's axiom (if I got it right): Things that can think critically can own property.

My axiom: Things that are members of a species, in which the average biologically mature member can consider abstract ideas, can own property.

I have not read the entirety of Block's paper.  I thought it had been summarized already in this thread.

Lastly, is the property of a corporation is owned by the corporation itself, then who owns the corporation?  It isn't a person, or even a potential person, so it can't own itself.  Or if it does, what right do the employees have to act on its property?

Spideynw:

AJ:

That is well and good, but the question is whether I am correct that valid logical reasoning from any such axioms will inevitably lead to absurd/abhorrent results.

Killing animals is abhorrent to some and two men having sex is abhorrent to others.  So what?  That does not mean it should be illegal.

Violating someone's rights is abhorrent to some.  Does this mean it also shouldn't be illegal?

Aster_Lacnala:

Spideynw:

AJ:

That is well and good, but the question is whether I am correct that valid logical reasoning from any such axioms will inevitably lead to absurd/abhorrent results.

Killing animals is abhorrent to some and two men having sex is abhorrent to others.  So what?  That does not mean it should be illegal.

Violating someone's rights is abhorrent to some.  Does this mean it also shouldn't be illegal?

With no way to obtain consent from children, we have no idea when their rights are being violated. If you define some absolute definitions of these rights, then men having sex would violate each others' rights, and should be forcibly separated.