[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. I was responding under the assumption that you were taking the ACist line that property rights are a natural extension of the right to self ownership. It seemed to me that Kaj was taking exception with the designation of property rights as "natural", and was arguing with you, so I assumed you had said that. I'm sorry I attributed statements to you that you didn't actually make.