[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
Because if so, please tell me how you can objectively tell whether something is damaging my property?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. But there are certain cases where I can tell for sure that you are damaging my property. Eliminating all cases where it is obvious that my property is being damaged or interfered with would be a good start. For those other subjective cases a reasonable man argument would be a decent solution.

[ QUOTE ]
non violent situations which cause a 1 in 6 chance of you dying - do you think you are within your rights to stop these occuring?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I am, as those infringe on my right to live. You are free to do what I want as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights. I don't see why I am not allowed to defend myself because you decide to do something incredibly dangerous. I suspect you will comeback with something about what probability is acceptable. And the answer is I don't know, but this isn't a natural rights problem. It is a subjective question for any society.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, missing the point - the violence isn't what matters

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. In Friedman's article he asks what if the gun had a million chambers and then switches to the plane example. This is why it is a bad example, he should have stuck with the gun. If he had, it would be quite clear that it is still not right to shoot the gun at someone.

I think we are stuck on different things. You are saying since what constitutes damage to property is subjective it means that it is ok to damage people's property sometimes. While this may be true it does not mean that it is ok to damage people's property in cases where it is not subjective. Friedman uses the stealing of a gun to stop a madman as an example of when it is ok to steal (which would always be wrong according to absolute rights supporters).