Until you can answer that WITHOUT somehow admitting to self-ownership, you have nothing upon which to stand.
Ah, Hoppe’s fallacy. You exclude the other possibility, that no one is owned and that there is no such thing as an ‘ultimate’ justification for anything. I do not claim that I, or anyone else, owns myself. I claim that I have the capacity to command my fingers and, it being amiable to an end of mine, I take advantage of this fact. Unlike moralists I do not feel the need to prop up my actions with assertions about cosmological justification.
Self-ownership is nonsensical because you are yourself. There is no coherent relationship to even examine. And, as I have said, property is a convention and not a ‘right’.
Define ‘settled civil people’ ?
People who have decided that fist-fighting and mortars are usually poor solutions to conflict, and have engaged in division of labor.
There isn’t any such thing. Now by what authority are you typing? If you are not owned by yourself, then you have no authority to use your fingers to type. Oh, you can command it, but what is issuing the command? Nothing! Why? Because there is no authority behind the command. Therefore, you haven’t typed anything. Therefore, you don’t even exist as a user here. Therefore, you could simply be…done away with here.
Now if you’re just wishing to demonstrate what it looks like when someone steals the concept: ur doin it rite, akshully (because LOLspeak seems appropros here).
Authority is a specious idea. It presumes ethical norms, it can not justify them.
Moreover, your argument is non sequitur altogether. It does not follow that because I have no ‘right’ to command myself that I do not in fact command myself, nor that I do not exist.
Obviously, I was using it as a generalization. I don’t feel the need to type ‘a number of individuals’ because collectivism in human action is always fallacious.
And…What does ‘poor solutions to conflict’ mean ? Maybe mass murder is a very good solution to conflict ? How can you tell ?
Those individuals engaged in it decide it. Objectively, of course, one can not rule out mass killing. But most people seem to do so for reasons of their own.
Ok, now that we have the gainsaying of your utterly unbacked and arbitrary assertions out of the way: by what authority are you typing?
You are the one asserting that ‘authority’ is required and, furthermore, you have not even defined what it means. I assert that I do this because there is a neurological relationship which is factually the case. This notion of authority and justification are not even required to explain what I am doing. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that such a requirement exists, indeed that it actually means anything.
Again, you have failed to define or demonstrate the necessity of ‘authority’. I do this by the same ‘authority’ that my computer monitor glows, IE, because there is a physical relationship between objects in the Universe. My mind and perception are nothing but physical facts within the Universe.
Again, you demonstrate the authority by typing. How odd that you do not grasp the notion of stealing the concept.
Since you do not believe that you exist (since you have no authority to type, because the physical fact of your mind somehow never gets asserted (authority) to control the fingers to type), I’ll just be not responding to the non-entity which you are (oddly).
All you’re doing is refusing to define what you mean by authority. This is absurd. Even if you were correct, it’s like yelling at a person that they obviously must accept the law of marginal utility because they act upon it; yet refusing to define what marginal utility even means. It’s religiously evasive.
Rothbard has made my point for me, when discussing natural rights as relating to human nature he says that natural rights would not apply between humans and vampires who must feed on them. But, of course, all human beings are existentially and biologically unique, so then are each persons requirements for satisfaction. Therefor a compatibility and constancy of satisfactions through ‘natural rights’ can not be worked out, a priori.
It makes no sense to talk about what one ought to do except in relation to an individual’s subjective preferences. I haven’t been able to find any natural rights authors who can answer that objection in a coherent way.
“You just haven’t read enough about natural rights.”
“I’ve read at least a thousand pages on it. Can you get to my specific points?”
“Read a thousand more and then come talk to me. I’ve read more about than you on natural rights, so the appropriate thing to do would be to write very short responses to your posts like ‘no,’ ‘false,’ ‘Roderick Long already refuted that,’ ‘so what?’ ‘not this stuff again!’ etc.”
“But what if I still disagree after a thousand more?”
“Well then you didn’t read carefully enough, or you’re an idiot, or maybe you just need a thousand more after that.”
“But it doesn’t make sense to talk about what an individual ought to do except in relation to that individual’s subjective preferences.”