Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
there is no entity. again, I realise that property rights dont actually exist , and that any definition I use is arbitrary in a way.
All definitions are arbitrary in a way. That's not the point. You mean *something* (whether real or imagined) when you use the term.
Quote:
It is my responsibility to defend my property.
But it's not actually your property. So you have no real responsibility to defend it. And if I go up and take it, I'm not taking it from you, because it was never yours to begin with. You've just got some illusory concept of property rights. That bottle of water is just a bottle of water. I want it. I'm going to take it. If you get in my way, you've now committed an aggressive act towards me, trying to prevent me from performing a free action. Whether that's force or coercion, it seems to be against your principles to do that.
Quote:
the definition, thats more difficult. Not everyone is going to agree on what property rights mean, and if they cant agree, then there is no basis upon which everything else rests.
I don't care about whether "everyone else" agrees on anything. But this statement, we could probably never come to the conclusion that the earth is round (since I'm sure there's some flat-earth-ist out there somewhere).
And I don't even care if language in general can't be agreed upon. You mean something when you use the terms. Even if you can't define it to the finest point, you have at least some concept that you're moving towards.
Again, you're really playing the role of a noncognitivist by just pretending the words are meaningless despite the fact that others (and apparently you) use them in a meaningful way.