Epic post, Clayton. I read it all, but I am wondering, aren’t you ultimately saying that law is common law, but X…is also ultimately common law, yet Y…is also ultimately common law, however Z…is actually also ultimately common law, etc.?
You’re using the concept of redrawing property lines, but the whole idea of property, where property lines are drawn, and what constitutes redrawing are all…ultimately matters of common law, right?
I trust you have read Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights, by John Hasnas ?
–
Also, why does a legal system have to be agreeable to the aggressor after they have aggressed? An aggressor may agree to a legal system beforehand, and of course they will disagree with it after they have broken the law. It seems to me that you neglected that time aspect. If you include the time aspect, at least Friedman’s theory seems to dodge your critique.