[Rothbardian]

If all land was obtained through initiation of force at some point in its history, then all private property derives from violence, and is illegitimately acquired, because natural resources are required to produce all goods (even your body).

ps. I am assuming you have to eat.

Well using the United States as an example, yes, it was acquired through the use of force. Before we consider what we should do about that, we need to first determine if there's anything WRONG with that. Is it wrong to use violence to take property? Until we can answer that question, it's not possible to critique the events of the past, nor where to go in the future.

[Rothbardian]

Most people do not agree on Libertarian "severe limits on the range of circumstances in which it is legitimate to initiate force against a person or his property." The Libertarian disagreement is actually with most people, and government merely the administrative arm they want to chop off.

Yes they do. People reject the initiation of force naturally, they just do not understand the nature of the state and therefor don't see anything wrong with it. The NAP is a consistent, observable aspect of human behavior. That is why statists dream up laughable justifications like social contracts and oxymorons like 'voluntary government'.

[Joe Liberty]

Then I'm wondering what "consent of the governed" means. Does it mean nothing more than approving of one's master? That's hardly a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", is it?

It means accepting that we can't all just make up our own rules if we want to live among people.

Where did you get that definition of "consent of the governed", that it means we have to live by somebody else's rules? It actually means the exact opposite: that you cooperate with everyone else to make the rules. That you as the individual citizen are self-governing. What you're describing is indeed just the ability to choose one's master, and then the master can do whatever he wants. That's not self-government, and it's not what "consent of the governed" means.

Here's the wiki definition: "Consent of the governed" is a phrase synonymous with a political theory where in a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

"...when derived from the people..." The individual citizen grants his power to the collective to do things on his behalf that he could do on his own, had he adequate resources. An individual has the power to defend his home, thus he grants that same power of self-defense to the collective to defend the borders. Logically, you cannot grant a power to someone else that you don't possess. If you can't rob your neighbor at gunpoint, you can't grant the power to your government to do it for you. At that point government has adopted powers it cannot justly possess, and you no longer have a government that operates at the "consent of the governed".

The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so.[b] But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

I already knew I needed to read more Rothbard, so thanks for that.

The problem I see with his logic is that children are not autonomous adults; they lack the mental and emotional maturity to make informed choices. So as I stated before: you'll find disagreement among libertarians on how to apply the NAP, but you won't find any disputing it. Those two things are not synonymous.

[Rothbardian]

I already knew I needed to read more Rothbard, so thanks for that.

The problem I see with his logic is that children are not autonomous adults; they lack the mental and emotional maturity to make informed choices. So as I stated before: you'll find disagreement among libertarians on how to apply the NAP, but you won't find any disputing it. Those two things are not synonymous.

Rothbards argument is that society should punish negligent parents through means other than law, as well as creating an open system through which parents who are unwilling or unable to care for their children can transfer parental rights to people who are willing.

[Joe Liberty]

Rothbards argument is that society should punish negligent parents through means other than law, as well as creating an open system through which parents who are unwilling or unable to care for their children can transfer parental rights to people who are willing.

So, as usual, there are facets of the opinion that were not presented.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Social_Critic]

Answering the op and being somewhat ignorant I say it's ok to sue, shoot, and or defame a polluter of a common waterway because it hinders my ability to enjoy a non polluted common space. However I'm willing to accept such pollution if I'm compensated in kind.

[Rothbardian]

So, as usual, there are facets of the opinion that were not presented.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's the typical "You're against the department of education? *Hissss* Why do you hate educating poor people/children??" strawman that libertarians have to deal with all the time.

Ethics of liberty is a great read, and can be found for free at mises.org.

[Rothbardian]

So, as usual, there are facets of the opinion that were not presented.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's the typical "You're against the department of education? *Hissss* Why do you hate educating poor people/children??" strawman that libertarians have to deal with all the time.

Ethics of liberty is a great read, and can be found for free at mises.org.

[Eran]

Because rights are universal.

You are right - all you did was define "rights".

What I am missing from you is the evidence/proof that, as defined, it is wrong to violate rights.

I obviously feel it is wrong to violate other people's rights (under normal circumstances), but I cannot claim that my position is logically-binding on others.