You are proposing that we should make away with all the stuff people fought and died for to achieve.
I'm guessing that it would be a wonderful paradise in your mind to go back to the 19th century when people were working 16 hour days in order to barely survive and if they got sick, well, too bad...
You socioeconomic beliefs couldn't sink any lower in my eyes. I knew right-libertarianism was inhumane but thanks for stating it so plainly.
So if people fought and died for a society of baby-eating and beating old ladies with clubs, you would defend it?
Believe it or not, our higher standard of living today came about precisely because of market forces, not government regulations and restrictions
(which, by definition, get in the way of willing buyers and sellers, thus reducing the amount of wealth created by society).No, this is not the definition. Indeed goverment regulation on minimum wages and the like helps create MORE wealth.
Life can be rough sometimes, but the solution is to unleash human creativity and potential, not impede it with government interference.
I'm not sure what could possibly be inhumane about my refusal to condone the initiation of force against my fellow man.
(which even the supporters of minimum wages have long admitted is impossible, admitting that their goal is economic redistribution and not wealth creation)
On what ethical theory do you base your judgment that the confiscation of a factory is morally wrong?
I also wonder what you mean by “I own myself (which I think we can all agree on.)” Are you saying that you have the same legal rights to yourself that you have over commodities that you buy? You are assuming legal facts that are different in different societies.
It is simply untrue that natural axioms of ethics are known a priori.
First off, you have to admit that there are societies in which human slaves were owned as chattel, so denial of self-ownership is not impossible, therefore the claim that it is a priori is false.
You say that alternatives are “internally inconsistent and self-refuting,” yet many people chose voluntarily to become bondsmen, selling themselves into slavery.
Today, workers sell their labor power to employers. During his time at work, he must do the tasks that his employer wants, not the things that he wants to do. It is the employer who is in possession of his labor and time.
Ownership is a term that derives meaning only in a social context. To say that your Robinson Carusoe owns the house that he builds is meaningless, as there is no social context that would create property rights.
Your contention that he would be justified to defend his home against later arrivals is a decision that cannot be made without concrete facts, specifically refuting your claim to a priori,, axiomatic ethics.
You want to justify capitalism, therefore you claim that all prior labor systems are really stunted forms of the modern fire-or-quit-at-will employment contract.
In fact your reasoning would be ludicrous to the slave owners of the ancient world or the landowner with serfs in the middle ages.
A principle becomes an axiom when the person arguing against it is shown to be using it himself.
If you did not have ownership in your person, you would have to get permission from whoever does own you to use your body
Well, yeah--and last time I checked, men coexist with other men. We know for a fact that we live in a world of more than one person, so property rights immediately come into play.
There is no way to justify stealing the fruits of someone else's labor once you've shown that there is a universal right to self-ownership and consequent ownership of that which one has produced by mixing his labor with previously unowned or justly acquired resources.
and that it can be deduced logically from simple, irrefutable premises that stem from the nature of man.