What should the state do when it shouldn't exist at all?
Paraconsistent deontic logic for the libertarian
This contains several contradictions. Which statements do you disagree with?
The state should not exist.
The state is not a moral agent — it is not an individual.
We reify the state and consider it a moral agent anyway.
We may not advocate that a person’s rights be violated.
The state violates property rights, e.g. taxes, eminent domain, etc.
The state provides some services (and goods) which are essential for human society, e.g. money, courts, police, law, roads, etc.
The state maintains a violent monopoly, or maintains its “last resort” status, on many of these services.
While the state does violate property rights, it doesn’t necessarily do so in the provision of these services — that is, a thief may do other work as well.
It is true that stolen or inflated money is used to pay for these services, this does not mean that the services themselves violate property rights.
The services may sometimes violate property rights. For example, the police service violates the property rights of drug users by putting them in jail.
The services may sometimes both violate and protect rights in the execution of its services. For example, when the state prosecutes a thief, it may both violate the rights of some (e.g. jailing the thief pretrial) and protect/execute the rights of others (e.g. the person robbed).
A person has a right to protect their rights.
A person has no duty to protect the rights of others.
May a person ask the state to protect his rights, knowing it will violate the rights of others?
If one says that given that the state has a monopoly, they should prosecute violations of rights, that does not mean that one thinks they should prosecute those violations in the way that it currently does.
Given that the state has a monopoly on the protection of rights, should the state protect rights?
If the state protects the rights of some, it necessarily violates the rights of others.
If the state “does nothing” when asked to protect rights, then it violates the rights of those who seek the protection, by preventing them from seeking protection elsewhere.
Property can be held in common by more than one person.
Slavery on property or to maintain property constitutes a claim on that property.
Persons have a right to homestead or travel on unclaimed/unowned property.
Persons do not have a right to homestead or travel on property not claimed/owned by themselves.
“Homesteading” is, at best, a vague predicate. For example, do I use a flower by appreciating it? Do I use property by hiking or hunting on it? Does a footstep not “change” a piece of land?
A fence or public claim of ownership, especially if uncontested, is less vague.
This doesn’t mean that “homesteading” is without merit.
That is, a claim of ownership, without evidence of possession (or previous possession) is without merit.
Best,
ihaphleas