[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It’s not a question of belief. It’s a question of behavior. What an ACist believes is not equal and opposite to what a Statist believes. A Statist believes that his/her beliefs entitle him/her to control/coerce me. If the arguments were:

Statist: I don’t believe in owning guns. Therefore I don’t own a gun
ACist: I believe in owning guns. Therefore I own a gun

Statist: I don’t believe land can be owned. Therefore, I don’t own any land.
ACist: I believe land can be owned. Therefore, I own land.

They would be equal and opposite (morally). However:

Statist: I don’t believe in owning guns. Therefore you can’t own a gun
ACist: I believe in owning guns. Therefore I own a gun

Statist: I don’t believe land can be owned. Therefore, you can’t own any land.
ACist: I believe land can be owned. Therefore, I own land.

Is the argument, they are not equal at all. The Statist believes that his beliefs entitle him to restrict my behavior. ACland has room for everyone, Stateland however does not.

(You are also making an additional leap that trespassing entitles the land owner to assault you. I don’t think ACist would agree (I don’t)).

[/ QUOTE ]

My whole point is that the ACist belief in property does restrict my behavior.

ACist: I believe in property. Therefore, you can't be on my property.

[/ QUOTE ]

The behavior that is restricted is not any behavior that you had any right to engage in to begin with. So what's your objection?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is circular reasoning. You use your own opinion to validate your own opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular how? It's HIS reasoning, not mine. He admitted he has no right to be any particular place except where he already is. In that case, he has no right to move to any other location. Given that, how can he object in being restrained from doing something he has no right or entitlement to do?

Where's the circle?