[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, there doesn't. Just don't interact with people that have views you don't like. If they try to forcibly interact with you THEN you certainly have a case for arbitration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with your supposed "solution". You can't ignore the impact your actions are having on other people or their claims that you are violating their rights. You don't get to decide a priori that their rights aren't being violated by your actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you do?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, and actual violation of rights is no worse than a "feeling" of rights being violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are defining an "actual" violation of rights based on your decision as to what my rights are. I say that you don't get to decide for me what my rights are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how I can violate your rights without interacting with you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Utilitarian calculus leads to oppression, invariably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with this. I don't know how you made the jump from "the need for arbitration of definition of rights" to "a central authority defines rights for everyone".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no need to arbitrate a difference of opinion between us if we are not interacting. By saying we must pre-emptively decide this question, you're initiating interaction.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, when you make the declaration that you are not violating my rights, rather than appealing to democratic rule for arbitration, you acting as the most centralized ruling authority possible - a dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]

A dictator who dictates over exactly one person - me.