NAP and homesteading are necessary and sufficient for argumentation to be possible.
In short, if an argument is to be had on its merits rather than what force can be mustered then aggression in not compatible with argumentation. What is the subject of the aggression, the body of the arguer. Homesteading is the first user acquistion of property. The body is the first thing the mind which is emergent from the body homesteads, it is also through homesteading previosuly unowned objects that propert in the material world is brought into the use of men, and becomes candidates for possible conflict.
What about the audio here, from this link?
NAP and homesteading are necessary and sufficient for argumentation to be possible.
[Are these two concepts the ONLY bases upon which argumentation is possible? I’m not asking leading questions here, I just don’t know.]
In short, if an argument is to be had on its merits rather than what force can be mustered then aggression in not compatible with argumentation.
[I understood this part! Yay!]
What is the subject of the aggression, the body of the arguer. Homesteading is the first user acquistion of property. The body is the first thing the mind which is emergent from the body homesteads, it is also through homesteading previosuly unowned objects that propert in the material world is brought into the use of men, and becomes candidates for possible conflict.
[OK, thanks very much sir, I think with this info I can read the documentation with a little bit more chance of picking up what it’s really trying to say]
I was having a technology meltdown yesterday. I promise to follow up on everybody’s suggested reading, and I’ll probably post new questions down the line. I think the “what is Ethics” question deserves my research perhaps first…
My big problem is that I’m not able to follow through what I consider to be rational practical applications of libertarian thought back to their foundations in philosophy, because I was never taught much coherent philosophy and never really read any on my own. I’m easily convinced by each author I pick up because I have no frame of reference. I’m trying to rectify this now, because I need to be able to spell out my beliefs in a way I feel can’t be easily challenged.