The only force is to stop someone from removing that private property, thereby denying that person's rights.
Are you saying others have right to what capitalists consider another's property rights?
I think the following comment might give you some clarity:
'' You claim you don't use aggression. You define aggression as the initiation of force. You then define the initiation of force as using force to implement and maintain all property systems except your own. Therefore, you conclude you don't use aggression. ''
I can't single on one and only one possible version of what you mean. Try using less negatives?
It's the basis of consent and trespass.
For the body only. And trespass generally deals with external property. Forcing someone away from your property is forcing someone to do something. Try turning up the rationality resolution? You need the concept of the right to enterprise free of interference as a basis for property rights, and therefore trespass and consent as you mentioned.
Anyway there wasn't much point in arguing with the majority of commies so there's little to lose in understanding the intricacies that underly capitalist values and how to debate them with someone who disagrees philosophically.
No. I said literally the opposite. No one has the right to take another person's private property. Using force to do that is a violation of the person's rights
Edit: i see that my wording was bit poor in my comment. Just clarifying that force can be used to prevent the theft of someone's personal property. Any removal that wasn't consented to.
Ok. I thought you were trying to make an argument that would convince someone who disagrees with private property.
to conclude my previous comment, the crux of the matter is that commies prefer a social safety net over free enterprise because their free enterprise has less value than the social safety net, to them. That's one path to being a commie. Basically the last man path.
Another path is being a collectivist/imperialist of sorts (basically the instinct of advancing your race, nationality or w.e) and thinking that private property is inefficient with that goal.
At the end of the day what drives people to be against property rights is that A- They have a desire other than property rights and B- they think property rights are inefficient compared to an alternative in achieveing that goal.
For example you used to have peopel itnerested in national prosperity who thought central planning was more efficient than markets. But they kinda got rekt empircally on that one, still there is no shortage of people who criticize markets (since they are indeed imperfect due to not being run by omniscient agents lmao)
In the first example, they just wanted to be evolutionarily viable in the shrot term and they (THINK they) are better of with muh safety net.
(post is archived)