How does that fact that it is possible for someone to kill another mean that there is no such thing as free will?
I fail to see how contracts are intangible. If I agree with someone on a trade, land border, whatever, we have set the terms and there are no grey areas. One can either break the contract or keep it; it is impossible to do both. There may be a dispute, such as whether or not my foot passed a land boundary we agreed upon, which is why in a civilized society one must have a clause to turn disputes over to a court. We have the free will to make, refuse, keep, or break contracts, and the society that makes and keeps them will advance.
There is nothing intangible about it whatsoever.
And for the record, I am not saying that a society whose goal is to protect natural rights is a bad one; I have expressed my interest in anarchy in another topic, saying that I would be much obliged to live in one. But think about this: Is not an anarchy actually a social contract where everyone agrees that protecting as much life, property, and freedom possible would benefit society?
no, anarchy is not synonymous with a set of individuals joined in a social contract. though it is both compatible with tihs, and often confused with this, as you are doing.
anarchy is a description of the political climate of a territory, or of a definite set of individuals, and describes that there is not an individual or institution with the self proclaimed legitimate right to do violence to the rest
Also, I would like to clairify what I said about the entire world being owned by the law & order agencies. I am not saying they own the people. I am saying that they own the land. But wait, didn’t I say that stuff couldn’t be owned unless everyone else agreed with one’s claim to ownership? Yes, and this works here as well. When a person chooses an agency, they agree to a contract with them to pay a small protection fee and to recognize the borders between the agencies to be valid. If someone is within a border, but does not agree with it enough to trade protection for it, they will not sign the contract. But because they are under social contract theory, they have just as good a right as anyone else to say what is theirs or not. So they may live in their area as long as no other ownership claims are made.
No grey area with natural property either. Contracts can or may not be extensions of natural property. Natural property is more fundamental. A social contract based on natural property is better I think… for I haven’t seen what your social contract is based on.
I think this is what your missing. Natural property is more fundamental than “contracts”. Contracts need definition and boundaries. Natural property defines boundaries better.
It is a social contract, but one based on what?.. life, property, and freedom (aspects of natural property). Natural property is a more fundamental premise to provide definition to social contracts.
Also, if an anarchy was implemented, why could there not be two competing defense agencies that owned land through legitimate trade? What is to stop that from happening?
You say natural property is more fundamental than a contract, but then why must have there been pre-existing contracts for a court today to decide what is required to homestead “natural property”?
if you abandon natural law and try to construct everything with social contact theory , then the concept of rights has no place. and fuirthermore, paradoxically , the contracts in ‘social contract’ theory are not real contracts as understood in the context of natural law, i.e. they have no moral weight; they are as Rothbard would say ‘mere promises’ , mere statements of hypotheticals, they might invite consequence but there is no right and wrong in a moral sense under this understanding. thats why i think social contract theory is a red herring for you.
the most popular model of anarchy suppose competition in the market for defence, there may well be several agencies in any given area, this is not a problem. defense agencies needent own land property themselves to do their work.
I agree that contracts have no moral weight. I only claim that breaking them is detrimental to society as a whole, and people must make and keep them to have humanity progress.
“detrimental to society” that’s a moral statement. You can’t make a moral statement if you don’t agree to “moral weight”. But you will make moral statements because Natural Law is more fundamental.