I don't want to hijack the property rights thread so I thought I would start this one. Kaj said
there :
"Again, why must you keep pretending there is some non-arbitrary basis for human action that defines our "rights" when in fact none exists?"
and:
"The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?"
Have I gotten your "principle" right here Kaj that you refer to? Your principle is that your subjective judgment of any discrete situation is not in fact based on a higher set of first principles, but rather your own preferences. Is that a correct reading of your views? If not please explain.
That is, is your "principle" in fact that there is no basis for asserting or believing in any set of principles other than one's own preferences?