Your answer contradicts you. If you are the only person who believes you have a property right in the thing you say you are defending, then you are in fact saying, "My hitting you is justified (i.e., I am at liberty to do it), because I defined to myself that this was defense." Take the example of the guy who has reached adulthood and become self sufficient thanks to his parents, and finds himself a lone shipwreck survivor on an island. He luckily finds the only source of fresh water on the island. And when the next survivor shows up, he refuses to allow her to take water from "his" spring, which has been "his duly-claimed property" from the dawn of man's habitation of the island. By defining his property right to himself, he has satisfied your definition of having a "right" to exclude others, extort from them, and do violence to them. All in the name of so-called "liberty."
And if the woman consents to have sex with the man, and has a child, is the man at liberty to defend "his" water from the child, too?
I'm not the only one who believes this, but even if I were, it is still right. Although I am confused by your sentence structure, and I suspect you didn't understand my previous answer, either.
You seem to be mixing aggression up with property rights. They aren't the same thing. Violence in defense of person or property isn't aggression. It isn't defense if the person you use violence against hasn't either used violence against you or made a credible threat to do so, or hasn't violated your property rights. No one has a right to violate the property of another, not even because of extreme need. Now, if you feel you have to, go ahead and do it and accept the consequences- but realize you are acting outside what you have a right to do.
How would you define "defense"?
And, yes, the shipwreck survivor has a property right to exclude others from the fresh water. He isn't defining his property right- he has that property right whether he recognizes it or not, and whether he chooses to defend it or not. And, yes, this necessarily includes the right to defend it from theft with violence.
Most people would see the value of sharing the water source with someone who could share in the work and increase the chances of both surviving. But he certainly isn't obligated to.
A child is a human. He has the right to defend his water source from a child, too, but he would probably be a jerk for doing so. It's not always a good idea to do everything you have a right to do-- plus, the woman would be at fault for agreeing to trade sex for water without insisting her child is part of the deal.
If I were the survivor, I would be happy to try to keep any other survivors alive with me. To share the work and help me solve problems that two heads are more likely to solve. In spite of my property rights. Until and unless it came down to the other survivor trying to kill or rule me. I can even coexist with cops as long as they keep their hands (and filthy "laws") to themselves.
I will say shipwreck scenarios are extreme situations which are not very realistic, so it is not realistic to base your ethics on "what ifs" of this sort. No solution in these scenarios will make everyone happy, so you might as well do the right thing if you somehow found yourself facing this trouble.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit