Okay. About a third of my PhD was on philosophical logic; and at one time I lectured on logic. I lectured on rights for 29 years.

Your comment about Hart and Dworkins is not entirely clear. Each would be surprised to think that his position implied that the state was entitled to do whatever it wanted. (Or is that not what you meant? If so, perhaps you could let me know--and why you think it is true.)

In my view, the right to property has limits, set by other, more important rights, such as those to life, shelter, food and health. How this is to be argued depends on how property is justified in the first place. To save time, perhaps you could let me know what you believe about that. You might note, though, that people with a great deal of wealth are in a position to deny others the opportunity to obtain property; or to retain the things that they create.

“Your comment about Hart and Dworkins is not entirely clear. Each would be surprised to think that his position implied that the state was entitled to do whatever it wanted. (Or is that not what you meant? If so, perhaps you could let me know--and why you think it is true.) “

I think it’s true because, as I said, both resolve to a foundation resting on state power. Hart – law as the command of the sovereign. How to identify the sovereign?: the one habitually obeyed. So this is precisely the kind of legal positivism that the first leg of the Nuhremberg defence affirms – that right is by definition what the state defines it to be. And we see this theory today in the orthdox idea that rights are what legislation defines them to be.

Dworkin purports to differ from the positivists in saying a law is not what the state says it is, but what the state ought to say it is. Okay, but why the state? Why that particular association? Why not the Country Women’s Association? Why not the Milperra Soccer Club? And of course the answer is, because they’re the ones with the guns and a claim of an exclusive right to use them not just in defence, but in offence – in unprovoked aggression oops “policy” – what they’re going to use police to enforce. Naturally, claiming and exercising such a monopoly, they take care to call any act of aggression by the name of right, which they claim requires only the formality of mere legislation. As I said, if that is so, then there is no abuse it will not permit.

“In my view, the right to property has limits, set by other, more important rights, such as those to life, shelter, food and health.”

In history, many states have legalized slavery. In such a case, according to the ‘rights as what is legislated’ theory, an escaping slave is a criminal, and the master who re-captures and punishes him is a victim of crime.

“How this is to be argued depends on how property is justified in the first place. To save time, perhaps you could let me know what you believe about that.”

I justify it as following from the principle of self-ownership, which cannot be denied without performing a self-contradiction. Thus it is axiomatic. It establishes at the least a property right to the physical stuff of one’s own body, one’s standing space, and what is appropriated from nature to incorporate into one’s body, - eg air, food. How could it be otherwise? From it follows the right of 'homesteading' – ie appropriating unowned resources; as well as the right to peaceable production, to the fruits of one’s labour, and to voluntary exchange of justly acquired property (no force or fraud).

There is no such thing as a right to human efforts taken by coercion; if there were, then there could be such a thing as a right to slavery, which I deny.

Also, if a theory that aggressive violations of property rights were justified by other allegedly higher claims, there is no reason why the legitimacy of that claim should be confined to the territory of a particular compulsory monopolist. It would be valid worldwide, regardless of state boundaries, and a state would have no more right to enforce it than anyone else. It would amount to a claim that anyone can attack anyone at any time. But yet the purpose of rules is to avoid or reduce unnecessary conflicts, not to create them unnecessarily.

“You might note, though, that people with a great deal of wealth are in a position to deny others the opportunity to obtain property; or to retain the things that they create.”

In the absence of a license for unprovoked aggression, all property is held subject to the sovereignty of the great mass of consumers i.e. society. And the greatest inequality between one market actor and another is never as great as the least inequality between a subject and the state, because the use of aggression is illegal in market transactions.

Furthermore, it is the oldest fallacy in economics that one person’s wealth is the cause of another’s poverty. If this zero-sum theory were correct, we would not have advanced beyond the material standards of our primitive ancestors. In fact it is precisely the process of capital accumulation that raises the living standards of all, especially the poorest of the poor. By contrast, with coercion-based transactions, the stronger takes from the weaker, and value is destroyed.

In any event, the considerations you urge cannot justify the use of aggressive violence because of the argumentation ethic – anyone, by participating in the debate, affirms their acceptance of the ethical principle of property – else you would not be qualified to argue the point but must refer us to the one who has ownership rights over your body.

But if your theory can justify aggressive violence, it is indeed arbitrary, and, there is no abuse such a theory would not justify. All I’d have to do is claim violating property rights was necessary for the higher purpose of health, as indeed the state does in funding velodromes, and in some states (Scandinavian – who else?) even visits to brothels for those deemed entitled. And what about surfing holidays – are they not also beneficial to health?

Now please explain why your rights claims are not arbitrary and unequal? (Mine aren't, because they are founded in the argumentation ethic as I have just explained - everyone demonstrates he accepts the ethic of them by entering into the discussion.)

"In my view, the right to property has limits, set by other, more important rights, such as those to life, shelter, food and health."

So if someone is hungry, he has a right to rob you?

And if you work and save up and buy a house, and someone else doesn't, he has a right to enter your home and take up residence to save himself from homelessness?

Looks like ozbib just got hit for six.