Right to Roam?

[Autolykos]

@Eric080

I don’t think using the line of, “but that would never happen!” is an adequate refutation of the scenario if you’re going to be dealing in an absolutist, rights-based defense of libertarianism. That would have more to do with a utilitarian/consequentialist evaluation of the scenario. I agree that such a case would be unlikely and I believe that society at-large would not respect this man’s private property because his ill-will is so evident.

One thing I like to remind people of is that things are already much worse in today’s world. I’ve used this argument successfully with at least two other people.

@Eric080

On the other hand though, I don’t think finding loopholes in an ethical system necessarily demolishes it. If you follow the guideline as a rule of thumb, society could be better off. I think most ethical systems are kind of ad hoc because it just serves to justify sentiments that either evolved or were conditioned to us by society. Now that’s not to say I think ethical systems are necessarily arbitrary (because I think it hearkens back to human psychology which is often uniform and means that what is good for one person is often good for another), but it basically just reduces to utility or satisfaction or what have you.

With regard to stateless societies, people make an argument from ignorance when they argue the following:

1. It can’t be proven that [insert crazy hypothetical here] could never, ever happen in a stateless society.

2. Therefore, [insert crazy hypothetical here] is inevitable in a stateless society.

3. [Insert crazy hypothetical here] leads to government.

4. Given both 2 and 3, therefore, government is inevitable in a stateless society.