Trigger Warning: Socialist Assassin Ponies

I just don't understand how libertarians reject the social contract, but they support property

anticapitalist:

case and point

The “non-aggression” principle is a social contract.

When did the people born into society consent to “non-aggression”? When did they consent to property rights? You can consent to the concept of ‘non aggression’ without consenting to property because you view property as being violent.

I anticipated that objection, but I guess you had replied before I had a chance to save my post again. In my edit, I said that the non-aggression principle is “an enforceable moral obligation logically derived from the nature of Man (qua Man) living in a social context.”

There is no agreement to it. The non-aggression principle exists as a fact of reality whether one acknowledges it or not.

Whether property (which I suppose you to mean the ownership of property) is violent or not, what matter is whether the ownership of property is an act of aggression and against whom if no one owns (in a moral sense) the property in question.

You’re implying natural rights, which do not exist. There are no inherent rights associated with being human.

>”There is no agreement to it. The non-aggression principle exists as a fact of reality whether one acknowledges it or not.”

Prove it. How can a principle exist in reality anyway? Like what does that even mean?

>Whether property (which I suppose you to mean the ownership of property) is violent or not, what matters is whether the ownership of property is an act of aggression and against whom if no one owns (in a moral sense) the property in question.

Firstly, you haven’t proven that the non aggression principle is valid/not a social contract. Secondly, you haven’t proven that property is valid/not a social contract. Property is an act of aggression against all those who use a given amount of property. and is an act of aggression against all those who lack property. IE… if a laborer is using property to make a good, but someone else claims ‘ownership’ and gets to take a portion of the laborer’s product, then he is aggressing upon the laborer.

Read my other post about this

Source: anticapitalist