Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[log]

Well, you may value the opinions of other men as nothing, but if that's so...what value are your opinions?  I, otoh, value opinions from men based upon metrics other than "did they come from a man".  

If it's from god, it's no more important and no more useful than if it is from a man.  I don;t actually believe in jesus, so obviously, the value of the rule itself means more to me than whether or not a character in a book is said to have lived their lives by it.  

As to whether or not the golden rule is incompatible with private proprty as defined in the op...so what?  I think you took liberties in your definition...but didn't feel the need to bicker about them.

My opinions have no value, of course.  That's why I have to come with truth - that private property is not merely analogous to, but is in very deed, the state.  I have to demonstrate that, and the demonstration stands or falls on the definitions deployed.  If an alternative definition of private property is to be offered it has to be shown that it cannot be reduced, as I have done, down to "monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others."

Ah, as an atheist, you do not see the utility of proving property incompatible with Christ's teachings?

Let us just say this - my ultimate argument is that the Golden Rule actually resolves all societal conflict, and for that alone it is worth looking at.  It's also not the kind of thing anyone would come up with on their own, in a world with a social order predicated upon private property as defined in the OP, which itself is predicated upon the notion of scarce resources.

That's it.  I think that as an atheist, you would be more open to thinking about these things than my nominal co-religionists, and that you might therefore get more value from it.