You either believe in absolute property rights under all circumstances or you dont. Theres no moral justifying postion that can allow you to infringe on anothers property rights.

Euphemisms are mental gymnastics used to justify legal force against another doing something you dont like or agree with. There can never be the proper way to justify the right amount of theft, used by the right peoples, at fhe right time, in just the right way that change this.

In a society where everyone is given the maximum amount of freedom you have to come to terms that there WILL BE people doing things you dont like or approve of. The crux here is are YOU going to bear the responsibility that you can not force them to do otherwise and should then Lean upon education and persuasion to convince the other party to not do what it is you feel so strongly about that you think a structure of violence should be placed in your stead in order to force your view upon the world. The real question you should be asking is this

What CAN i do that makes the certain behavior i so have a distain for as difficult to do or socially disapproved of that the problem sorts itself out. Dont talk about it, be about it. I know i can only control myself and only influence those around me, that is what i control

Further reading here

https://mises.org/mises-daily/property-rights-are-human-rightshttps://mises.org/mises-daily/property-rights-are-human-rights

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The problem with utilitarianism is that there’s no such thing as a “util”.