: SDF: Moral differences amount to more than your Favorite Law. And one can always trace "force" to some prior instigation, so the question of "who started it" can get muddled.
With that view I can see why 'blame the system, blame mommy, blame the school, blame society...anything but me' is such a popular cry.
'who started it' is relatively easy to evaluate when someone is raped for instance, blaming the rapists toilet training or somesuch, however much it may or may not have been a factor, does not undo the attack as being inititation, nor the 'victims' act as self defence if he/she were able to do so.
: SDF: The rich initiated force, you're defending them. All of America, for instance, is based on the European initiation of force, in stripping the "Indian" population of the customary rights they had over their land, and herding them into reservations after long marches in which most of them died. Then they sanctify this force with property, which you defend. Are you going to answer my question?
Bomb current day germans because once many of them were evil, that is what you suggest with the above. Strip property from Americans (I assume you mean land, not the things they have developed upon it - microwaves dont grow on trees) now, because it was often taken by force, or without consultation with locals a few hundred years ago. Im sure you are responsible too, for that theft during 1132 in Europe somewhere, remember? Time to make up for it.
Hence the question is without meaning.
.... need to trust people not to be business frauds, since the motive for fraud would be removed.....
All assumes an immense abundance. Assumed without evidence of its likelyhood.
: SDF: Since you've chopped off the previous post, I have to remind you of what I asked you to prove. You said that "peace is a fantasy." You've gone on to blather about something else.
Nicely avoided. I take that as an admition that when you 'prove' AC wont work its as dubious as any such predictive proof. Infact it is a theory of why it wouldnt work.
: SDF: I don't need ALL the food, just enough to survive.
And if there are a million of you the scenario I painted stands true. If one little loaf is ok to steal then so are all of them.
: SDF: There is more than enough food for everybody.
Your avoiding the principle. If its ok to steal in order to get things you consider needs then there is no end to what is ok to steal. Or would you introduce a set of objective limits?
: SDF: Loiterers are sitting, possibly sleeping, on my property. If they are there, they are discouraging moneyed shoppers and using my property to do it. If there is no public property, if all property is private, such individuals, deprived of the means of paying rent, must use "force" to occupy the property of others. Shoot 'em all, they're bad for business, like they do in Brazil.
You keep referring to Brazil. Where is the 'shoot homeless' programme? Lets see a site, you usually link a few dozen private sites per post, or the directiv etc.