Comment: Any property definition, or any morality definition

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't think the NAP is salvagable (see in situ)

Any property definition, or any morality definition

is going to require majority consensus to be implemented, regardless of its derivation. Even if you somehow prove some kind of God-derived morality, which you seem to favor, it's useless unless you get the majority to accept it. So, your claim about any property definition relying on majority consensus is essentially meaningless. Rather, the question is how do you get the majority to adopt a particular property or morality creed? Also, is consistency important? Because if the property or morality creed does not agree with self-ownership, you have some contradictions to deal with.

As for the arrest objection, NAP is not compatible with arrest prior to conviction. But I don't see this as a problem. That's how I would want things to work anyway.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus