[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bkholdem is the only "utilitarian" ACist on this board who might have an answer for you beyond "That violates my rights, so you can't do that". So you'd have to ask him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying that someone who rejects the morality of natural rights might still not be able to be swayed by the practical benefits of AC? I don't think this is what many ACers believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who rejects the morality of natural rights might be swayed by the practical benefits of AC.

But they will never be swayed by most the AC posters on this board, because those posters will never admit that such a person can have a coherent sense of morality without accepting natural property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a utilitarian ACist (a rule untilitarian) I will say that I neither 'reject' nor adopt the morality of natural rights, but I am certainly swayed by the practical benefits of AC (including the practical benefits the poor and destitute will experience that they are denied under statism) which happens to provide me with additional utility.

And it is irrelevant to me if the other AC posters (one, all, or any % in between) admit or deny that a person who rejects the morality of natural rights can have a coherent sense of morality without accepting natural property rights. I accept property rights but I don't think I accept the notion of 'natural' property rights.

I have also had a pleasant debate with another ACer in the politics forum about morality (it did not revolve around property rights though) if you care to search.