[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've acknowledged that force can unseat legitimate owners. This is just a sophisticated variant of the death star objection. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What you haven't acknowledged, and are cleverly but painfully yet again avoiding, is the point that the whole concept of legitimacy is itself something that YOU are defining based on YOUR values. And that is the whole crux of the issue. Yeah, force can overpower legitimate claims. But the point is that the legitimacy of the claim itself is only based on your notion of what legitimate ownership means. Your view would be that it is illegitimate for 100 people to claim a piece of your land and move in and take it without your consent. Well, that's a fine view. I might even agree. But that is still a wholly subjective view and there is no basis for your claim of "legitimacy" other than your own words ... or force to back it up.

Labeling this the "death star objection" is your usual tactic to dismiss these types of points. This has nothing to do with some wild-eyed far-fetched scenario and has everything to do with the core belief that private property has some inherent legitimacy in itself.

I am for the ownership of private property (including land, with some possible caveats), by the way. I am just not blinded any more to believe that there is something sacrosanct about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read the whole post before you respond.

I'll copy and paste the part you ignored:

It doesn't matter if morality is subjective or not.

If it is, then as you point out, transactions cannot be legitimate without recognition - consent from both parties in the transaction. They have to agree on the rules of legitimacy. if they do not, the default position must be that transactions are illegitimate. This is 100% in line with the AC position.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land. Ok then. News to me that you felt this way but I am encouraged to hear that. So I expect you to desist in condemning "coercion" (including taxation) as immoral or against your "rights", and start recognizing it as just a different viewpoint and treat it as such. I'm looking to such debate.