ceruleanhansen

Being passive aggressive isn't a substitute for an argument. Grow up. I am not asking you to believe anything I say, I am asking you why you believe what you believe. I came here to learn. Stefan's book Universally Preferable Behavior explicitly mentions that it has not solved the is-ought problem.

They are knowingly choosing to let everyone else starve. You might think it is acceptable for them to do that, but at least do so honestly. According to the rational moral intuitions of those involved. Even Molyneux doesn't go farther than claming that our moral intuitions (at least, the logically consistent and universally applicable ones) can be derived from a set of first principles. Moralist positions such as those presented by Molyneux are essentially descriptivist. The is-ought problem has not been solved, so if you are going to be a moralist you can't really have a rational source for your moral claims other than moral intuitions. Molyneux's view is fine here, and I agree with the principle that the human moral intuitions that are capable of consistent, universal application (categorical imperatives, in the language of Kantianism), but the standards for who can own property according to his views do not really seem consistent with any first principles. My inquiry here can be more succinctly summarized like this: What makes a certain kind of property morally valid, and from what moral principles does such ownership derive?

Accepting popular vote as a means of settling property disputes does not require us to accept popular vote in other matters. This is not inconsistent anymore than propertarian anarchists here who accept aggression in defence of property but reject it otherwise. This is a meaningful difference. If a large number of people are going to be affected by what is done with a piece of property, why shouldn't they have a say in what is done with it? It would not be in their own interests to do that. This kind of scenario is problematic with or without democracy. What if the farmers just decide not to sell their crops one year and inflict mass starvation? Both propertarian anarchism and democracy presuppose a certain level of rational self interest among the populace. When the community's decided use for the property is more likely to lead to a morally superior outcome to the Prior User's decision.

There may be contracts that are social, but that is not quite the same as the ethical theory developed by Rousseau that is incidentally called "The Social Contract". Rousseau's social contract refers to something much more specific that the kind of social contract you describe. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

What is the rational metric for determining morally valid standards of ownership of material property? What makes homesteading for example a more valid moral basis for determining ownership than need (as posited by the communists), use (as posited by classical anarchists of the Proudhon type), or popular vote (as posited by democrats and anarcho-communists of the Bakunin type)?

As Libertarians we are often confronted with the non-argument of "the government can do this because of the social contract", as though the social contract was some kind of philosophy dust you can sprinkle onto an injustice to make it moral. Anyway, I've written a critique of social contract theory on my blog that has a lot of counter arguments to social contract theory that some of you might find useful. If not, I would love to hear some flaws with my critique. My blog post can be found here: http://maxwellhansen.com/blog/?p=79.

I am quite new, and searched a bit, but was unable to find something that adequately explained the status of property in aggression. How is it aggressive for me to disrespect your ownership? The communists say that the amount of labor put into the creation of something determines the amount of ownership given to a producer of a good, which is a reasonable way to define ownership, but it also lacks any coherent moral basis. Simply asking "why is labor the most relevant factor in value" seems to break the entire communist argument on moral ownership. I understand very well that the market would implement powerful mechanisms to deter theft. This is obvious. So why do we need to add the extra barrier of morality? Isn't it sufficient to say that theft is an undesirable behavior that the market can take care of on it's own? Usurpation of property is aggressive insofar as aggression to the owner is required. I certainly believe that theft (to use an arbitrary example) is undesirable and would be strongly mitigated in an anarchist society. But the discussion here is about the morality of theft, and I do not believe that theft is immoral according to the non-aggression principle.