Quote from: Ekaros on December 11, 2013, 02:29:06 PM

Quote from: User_513 on December 11, 2013, 02:55:16 AM

Quote from: Hawker on December 10, 2013, 10:12:57 PM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on December 10, 2013, 10:04:22 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 10, 2013, 08:51:31 PM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on December 10, 2013, 05:36:10 PM

When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).

It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here...

My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means.

Isn't that you imposing your morality on other people? For example I am opposed to animal cruelty. Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted? What gives you the right to dictate that?

Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you?

Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it.

Either people have more rights to their property than you do, or everybody has a claim to their property and a say in how it is to be used.

If everybody has a claim to property, then nobody has more claim than the owner, and thus no justification for overriding the owner's beliefs about how the property should be used.

If anybody has a right to control property, it's the person who has gone through the process of acquiring ownership. Otherwise, nobody has that right.

Neither possibility justifies the state.