[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, then, where do rights come from? The Lockian argument is that there are natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but I do not believe that. It seems to me that we would first have to agree that there are such rights to begin with, and I do not agree that there is. If I do not agree that the rights to life, liberty, and property are actually natural, then how can your concept of "rights" stop me from taking your life, liberty, or property?

I did not read the Liberterian Creed, but by the sound of the don's post, it sounds like it is a Lockian argument.

I am, of course, speaking hypothetically. I am not a Lockian, but I will still use his principles againt you when it serves my interests [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read the Rothbard chapter. He logically explains why property rights are consistent with human nature and the reality of human existence. I mean, expand upon the alternative--the right of every human to exert force on other--and see where that leads.

You assert that without formal law, everyone would start using force because there would be no state to prevent them. It is only rational to assume that by using force, one expects force to be used on them in return. Therefore, in every thread you seem to imply that humans want force to be exerted upon them. I contend that this is not the case. Some people will always choose to use force, regardless of the presence of the state. The other people, who are against this use of force, will demand restitution against those who use it. You seem to be implying that the former will overwhelm the latter. I contend that this is contradictory to human nature.