Prove my yardstick is wrong. I’ve proven yours is and refuted your objections. The post is still waiting.
What?
What trap? I want to know - “what is your legal / ethical objection to the Holocaust? Do you have one?” I’m not seeing it. You don’t believe in an objective set of political ethics, i.e natural law, natural rights.. so if it’s subjective and rights are determined by society and the legal system - just as happened in Germany, then you - if you wish to remain consistent with your previous declaration - you have no legal or political ethics objections, you would not do anything to those who committed genocide. After all, they were just following orders!!! What they did was not illegal.
So your only objection to the holocaust is personal disgust? Personally, that disgusts me.
Personal morals are subjective - they are influenced by culture, nature, nurture, friends, family, community, whatever…
Ethics (Political) on the other hand is objective.
"Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.
For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:
• ownership of one’s own self,
• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and
• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership -either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.
These rules -which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”- can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind." Ethics of Liberty - Rothbard
“Murray N. Rothbard had a nice phrase that he used to summarize this position: universal rights, locally enforced. Those two principles are frequently in tension. But if you give up one of the two principles you risk giving up liberty. Both are important. Neither should prevail over the other. A local government that violates rights is intolerable. A central government that rules in the name of universal rights is similarly intolerable. Heaven on earth is universal rights, locally enforced. No, it’s not here yet. That’s why libertarians exist, to work for the ideal.” - What we mean by Decentralization - Rockwell
Thus, and I elaborated on this recently in some thread I can no longer find - that individuals and “society” may use various means to condemn such actions as immoral, for eg. in India the cow is a sacred animal. In a Libertarian society, there is nothing unethical about homesteading the cow and doing what you want with it, as long as it doesn’t violate the NAP - it doesn’t violate natural law / political ethics, then the law should have nothing to say about it.
In India, that doesn’t mean the individual who slaughtered the cow - won’t be ostracized, condemned, boycotted, ignored, barred from certain private property, his reputation attacked etc. (All acceptable, as they do not violate the NAP) Some people will refuse to sell him items, while others will take pity and do so. He can use reason and persuasion to convince them that their beliefs are absurd and illogical etc. But he cannot initiate violence against them, and they cannot to the same to him.
Oh no, I completely understand (“get”) your position. It is just absurd & pathetic. Your assumption is that the state “system” justly owns the property. That’s an easy mistake to make of course, since you have no theory of property rights. As utilitarians often do - they accept the status quo as starting point. For that I’d recommend Rothbard’s - Justice and Property Rights.
You are also guilty of the ‘take it or leave it fallacy’.
Why are you blaming the victims? Let’s say the issue was over taxation in this “system”, and you propose 'take it or leave it".
Answer me this; the principle is that taxation is theft, so why blame the victim? Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation “if you don’t like it you can leave”? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the same things to victims of physical and sexual assault? No doubt you would, or am I wrong?