[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you look at it this way, the only other way somebody could have a 'right to exist' would be by forcibly taking it from somebody else, no? I'm not sure how anyone, in any type of system, could really substantially exist without the help (or at the least being associated with) other human beings.

In any case, I think it is hard to deal with these "fringe" issues by using only a strict and extremely thin conception of libertarianism. Anarchism, or ACism, or whatever, isn't really a separate moral code but rather (hopefully) a part of a more complete one; after all, there clearly seem to be moral issues that fall outside the realm of political structure and questions of 'voluntary transaction vs aggression.' So even though ostracizing someone in such a complete manner falls within the technical bounds of nonaggression and is consistent with libertarian rights theory, I think most would find it inconsistent with a complete ethical theory and work to find ways of non-aggressively fixing the situation (which, in this case, might be as simple as making transactions w/ a fellow human being).