As for the “millionaire murdering a homeless person” problem, it’s easy to solve. Some people think that the millionaire can avoid punishment in a market anarchist society by bribing all the private arbitrators, but there’s a counterbalancing force – people who are greedy enough to take the bribe are also greedy enough to use the murder as an “excuse” to confiscate all of the millionaire’s property. Since the millionaire’s bribe offers can’t possibly exceed the value of all his property, nearly all private arbitration agencies would prefer the “convict him and confiscate his property” option over the “take the bribe and shut up” option.

Natural rights: the assignment of responsibility to individuals for their own lives and the authority and right of individuals to engage in whatever actions they may choose to support and fulfill their lives based upon their ‘nature’ as biological and intellectual beings.

Thus, natural rights are determined by humans, for humans, with the goal (usually unexpressed) of social harmony.
For natural rights to exist, there must also be ‘equality’ of rights.

If the rule of force is practiced universally, eventually we all end up killing one another. And the last one left standing is the biggest, the strongest, and the most sadistic.

Where are humans most human? In small groups of hunter gatherers, or as cogs in the machinery of the state and its neverending meat grinders?

A “right” is something which is right. “Having” a right simply means being right. It is right that I be left free, whether or not I can defend myself.

Your word-gaming is so confused, I can only conclude that you have attended a government institution of higher learning. What they teach there – aside from world-class sarcasm – is the ability to give to any word the least likely definition and then pretend it is the most likely – all for the purpose of debate-finessing.

This little trick allows one to interpret a “right” as a strength, rather than a moral judgement. But obviously, what is right is not the same as the strength to defend what is right. Even children understand that, but then they haven’t been to college yet.

How silly your post was. And how well educated. Or do I repeat myself?

I’ve often thought that Libertarianism is an orphan from the Left, it appears that Anthony Gregory agrees.With this in mind, I’d like to see a dialogue between you or Mr. Gregory and someone from a Bakunist Anarchist or an Anarcho-Syndicalist perspective.

How does a Radical for Capitalism differ from a Wobbly? Where do you converge? Did you dream of seeing Joe Hill last night?

Do you fly the Black Flag?

All of this of course does not mean that man can live on “Natural Rights” alone, so to speak. Strong ethics in combination with the ability of the individual and community to defend themselves and their property go very well together.

before i post criticizing an issue, i try to make sure that i have at least a working knowledge of the issue. anyone with only a cursory understanding of libertarian philosophy and natural rights theory would never make the claims you’ve made above.

i recommend making an objective study of libertarianism and natural rights first, then returning to make reasonable criticisms.

Interesting. I think if we lived in a world where subjectivity and intersubjectivity did not exist and/or is completely arbitrary, I would completely agree with you. But it ain’t that way. As subjective beings, there does remain a strong pattern of what we deeply feel is ethically right and wrong. Say we lived in a primitive society, even though you were able to run away with my spear and no-one had the “force” to stop you, there is still a feeling that your doing so was wrong. This is an example of how property rights naturally exist despite the lack of effective enforcement.

Conversely, “Force” in the absence of backing by what people can by themselves conclude is just is simply not sustainable. That’s why I think that in the long run, tyranny will always be overthrown. The sneakier it is, the longer it may last, but that is the exception that makes the case for the rule stronger in fact.

The case for abolishing the state is the same as the case that people shouldn’t steal from or murder one another.

Gregory backs me up by making no distinction between retaliatory force and initiatory force (charge you fines, etc.).

Gregory also lays out a good argument for reforming the state, but no good argument for the abolishment of the state.