Property rights, let alone other rights, do not make logical sense except as part of a society with a government.
I think some things should be inherent such as life and liberty along with other 'rights' like property. The difference is how these rights are guaranteed. Some could ensure their own but not everyone has the ability to defend themselves
Yes, in order to have property rights government needs to exist. This is one of the fundamental purposes of the social contract.
People believe in a lot of things without being forced to believe in them. People also spontaneously organize. Violence is not essential to human existence. Violence just makes things a whole lot messier.
Of course. Calling something a "right" is no more meaningful than humming if you have no means of enforcing that right. The only effective way of enforcing property rights is through some kind of governmental structure.
Or with weapons. You don't need government, you need power.
Sure. That works great, as long as you have the capacity to watch your things 24/7.
Rights can be logically determined regardless of human concepts. That's what makes them rights.
Is not what's logical to some illogical to others?
They can disagree on the premise, but what is logical is logical regardless of anyone's opinion.
Haven't we both had discussions where one person claims something is logical and the other calls bull?
Well, anyone can *claim* that something is logical or illogical.
But logic is objective and can be determined with finality. What you can truly agree or disagree on is the premise.
Well then, couldn't you claim that by your own argument that just because you think something is logical, doesn't mean it's logical?
One could claim anything, but that wouldn't make it actually logical. Disagreements result more from opposing premises than actual differences in logic.
Government is a necessary evil in America. Unfortunately, the federal government has too much power.
Alexander Hamilton would disagree; he would say they don't have enough power
And Thomas Jefferson would disagree.
Good; now you know that the founding father argument doesn't mean much
Hamilton would say that in today's world the government has too much power. The government has infinity more power now then when Hamilton was alive.
Redsox, you don't know wtf you're talking about. Hamilton would've favored the president being able to override SCOTUS decisions. He also supported 6 year terms for presidents with infinite reelection possibilities. And he wasn't big on states rights
I think a society without a government can still establish rights, even if they don't define them as such. Families and groups of friends do it all the time.
What happens when your enemies take your property?
I take it back. What happens now if my neighbor takes my property, but the government decides he has that "right"? The rights the government enforces are just rights we've all agreed we have.
Sure, but that's just a distinction between good or effective governments and bad or ineffective ones. Even a group of five people is still technically a "government" if they use their alliance to assert any form of moral authority or actual power.
Remember, being a "government" - even a very big one - just means that you assert the right of your government to exist. Asserting a government's right to exist doesn't mean every country will respect it. Traditionally, this was a large part of what
wars were about. This government disagreed with that one about something irreconcilable, so they went to war to determine whose government had the right to decide.
The same thing any two individuals would do if there were no governments.
Sure - which is why a whole bunch of tiny governments with no real central governing body is a pretty inefficient and generally inferior way of running things ;)