You’ve changed nothing. Tell me then who imputed value to humanity? If you cannot answer that then you yourself are labeling humanity intrinsicly valuable.
You are correct value is given to things by individuals. But if those individuals are worthless, what they consider valuable is also worthless. Value has to have an “unimputed” origin, which would make it intrinsic… Or a religious belief if you prefer…
gotta go for now, my brain is throbbing and I’ve been at work for 12 hrs… 
I use Madison in Federalist #10 to justify property rights.
“The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”
For instance, if you are born with bad eyesight, you would have a right to acquire and keep eyeglasses as your own property.
Huh? I value myself. Therefore, I am valuable. My valuation of myself need not be imputed from another, that is, there is no problem with the fact that it is circular.
Again: nonsense.
Clayton -
@Empty: You admit you are a newbie but you seem to be jumping headlong into advanced material without having done due diligence in the rudiments. Your Madison quote seems to be out-of-context and incomplete. Please listen to the entire Hoppe lecture I embedded above, it will give you a good starting point for a useful discussion.
Clayton -
mainstream Austrian theory
Yep, that’s what I was looking for! Though I value side opinions and don’t mind the discussion on God if it’s helpful to the question.
You are correct value is given to things by individuals. But if those individuals are worthless, what they consider valuable is also worthless.
That is a good point! Though we give items value, who gives us the value?
Huh? I value myself. Therefore, I am valuable. My valuation of myself need not be imputed from another, that is, there is no problem with the fact that it is circular.
Sure, but you also have to give value to others, which you don’t always do. It seems like libertarianism requires a respect for an inherent value of humanity in others. Otherwise we fall into anarchy. So humans need have some intrinsic value.
I will look into the videos posted, I am interested.
My view on God (which might be out of being a scared little guy trying to reconcile a belief in God and a belief in a cold universe) is that God either in some way created the universe or was created alongside the universe and can influence the universe in some ways. However, the problem with receiving rights from a divinity is that not all believe in that divinity, and who is to say which divinity is right (indeed, I believe mine is! 
).
The idea of us being simply atoms is true, and when the discussion is framed this way, then anarchy appears to be justified. However, I believe that our consciousness and rationality is some special thing that is “human”. Here is some more on that:
I believe in determinism of the universe. Physics acts in constant ways on matter, making any state of the universe pre-determined. Hence, no free will. If you believe in the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics, then there is randomness, making it non-deterministic, yet still rules out free will (our actions are random).
When someone hears this argument, they think “then there’s no point in thinking about anything, just act and blame determinism”. Well, no. Though free will may not exist, we must behave as if it does. Because we never know which choice we were supposed to make, we don’t know what this determinism results in. Hence, we must behave as if free will exists.
From this I derive some special value for consciousness and rationality, which is the intrinsic value of humanity.
So yeah, I will watch the videos and get back to you 
You’re taking a value-free approach to things. That’s fine. However, the very notion of “property rights” implies a non-value-free approach. If you’re actually arguing that one shouldn’t believe in any notion of “property rights”, then guess what? You’re sneaking in a value judgement. Oops!
It seems to me that anyone who believes that rights exist as things-in-themselves - regardless of whether he’s an atheist, a Christian, a Hindu, etc. - will run into a problem trying to demonstrate such existence for them. However, it’s not necessary to presume that mankind has value in order to consider every human being to be entitled to rights in property or anything else.
Gobbledy-gook. I only value a tiny fraction of the people on the planet. This is easily measured by my willingness to give money to help them. In the abstract, I value humans more than other animals but this would only come to bear in some sort of lifeboat scenario where I could only choose to save a stranger I don’t know or an animal. Otherwise, I do no more to help people I don’t know than I do to help animals. I value myself more than anyone else and this is easily measured by the amount of my resources I spend on myself versus the amount of resources I spend on others. Surprisingly, this is true of almost everyone including those who supposed to be extremely selfless, such as holy men since very few of them actually have any resources of their own and they consume the majority of whatever resources they are entitled to (such as their daily food ration).
There is generic charity, of course, but I find that the people I know need plenty of help and I would rather devote my resources to helping people I know than hopefully helping somebody I don’t know. There are some exceptions but I find this is the general rule in my life.
I’m genuinely baffled how theological conceptions of value have anything to do with value in the sense of economics. Even religious people who are economists have no difficulty separating the two.
Clayton -
I think it is you who is mixing up value. I speak of value as in “human life is precious” thus the NAP. If humanity is inherently value-less, the NAP and self-owndership fly out of the window.
Of course you value those close to you more than those unrelated to you. But that is personal value. I speak of unversal value that no one asigns but simply exists.
Please, show me this value. Can you measure it with a Geiger counter? Can you hear it over a shortwave receiver? Where, pray tell, can I see some of this value that no one assigns but “simply exists.” Surely, the effects of something that exists apart from any human mind must be observable somehow or other.
I have no commitment to NAP - it’s just a first-order approximation of common sense regarding rules of inter-personal relationships.
Clayton -
There is none.
None of the above. There is no proof of property rights, self-possession, non-aggression nor contract rights. These are all personal preferences that we libertarians choose to accept as part of our moral code of behavior.
Looking for a logical first step to proving property rights is as intelligent as figuring out why cats chase mice.
Eh, but then we have no argument against “public property” and we open up the way to socialism. We can’t simply say “we like it like that”, because then statists say “we like to be able to compel you to do stuff”.
I was hoping that there is some way to take contract, NAP, and self-ownership, non-controversial basic rights that no one but a complete anarchist would deny and from there see if I can build the case for private property.
you are talking about “might makes right” principle here. And it’s different than being able to choose the prefered property system.