-
So, can you not use threat of force to make someone get off your property? Or must you reason with every trespasser and wait for private arbitration until you're justified kicking him out?
-
So, this means one's concept of property must exist first, before we define aggression. And once we have the concept of property, the concept of aggression becomes obsolete. While without it, aggression is ambiguous.
-
How do you define aggression?
-
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221998
-
What do you guys think about this speech: www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/06/rand_paul_at_heritage_restoring_the_founders_vision_of_foreign_policy.html
-
Should parents be allowed not to vaccinate their children? Should parents be allowed to pump their children with aluminum-filled vaccines? At some point we have to solve the problem that there is no final arbiter of truth on the one hand and that we want to protect children from abuse on the other.
-
No, it wouldn't mean that. I don't see how that follows at all. This is the conversation: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/?p=132588 Also see this interesting post about it: http://goo.gl/T1rBL
-
gotlucky: I am basing my assertion on what Kinsella himself told Block in an online-posted conversation (about voluntary slavery). If I borrowed a watch from you and lost it, I don't owe you anything because I don't have that watch in my posession anymore. The same if I promised you a watch or transfered a title to it starting from some future
-
Well, I know that Kinsella, for instance, holds that you can't enforce contracts or debts. And if a thief stole money and them used them on drink or food, there is nothing to return, and he doesn't owe you anything.
-
The point is that for all intents and purposes you could own another person if he were a criminal, for instance, and that would not contradict AE or NAP.