I whole-heartedly agree! You may use logic all day long. But to get others to accept the validity of your reasoning, you may need to support your claims.
Feel free to read any of the many treatises on self-ownership out there. I'm not giving "Liberty 101" classes here. This is basic stuff.
Perhaps you do not know what axiomatic means?
Self-evident would be one convenient definition.
First, one does not prove axioms. You either accept them or you do not.
False.
Second, you seem to be making a claim: that self-ownership cannot be denied without also accepting it.
"Seem?" I stated that flatly.
And you conclude that self-ownership is axiomatic (I assume you mean "valid" or "true"). But you haven't supported that claim in any way. It's like you're trying to prove an "axiom" by contradiction. But your contradiction seems to be that no one else has not disproved your statement. The burden is upon you, the maker, to demonstrate that your statement is valid. If you think your "axiom" is true, you may prove it.
Someone doesn't seem to understand how self-evident statements work. The fact is that it is logically impossible to argue against self-ownership without implicitly accepting self-ownership as valid. Offering to let you try is just humor - you can't.
And none of this actually shows a link between self-ownership and how all property rights flow from it. I believe something like that was the original assertion.
Which is, again, "Liberty 101," and should not need to be discussed by anyone who is actually even vaguely in the liberty movement. You own you. Ergo, you own all the fruits of your labors, including any property you obtain by homesteading or trade. Provided you do not aggressively violate the self-ownership of another, no one may interfere with your self-ownership, without himself being an aggressor.
If you reread the thread, I believe there are multiple instances of sound being spoken of that can damage things. I'm quite sure of that.
Yes, by individuals such as yourself, who were trying to build straw men. The actual discussion is about "annoying" sound like loud music and barking dogs.
Either way you cut it, I cannot see how that could be assault. You may attempt to demonstrate why you think it's assault. In doing so, you should probably tell us what you think assault is. But I'd refrain from just assigning "damaging levels of sound" some actionable, legal-sounding name.
Go look up the definition of assault. Using sound waves to cause damage to another is no different from firing bullets.
The issue, of course, is actually causing damage. You can't fire a gun randomly at my house, either. Or set a brush fire, knowing that you do not have the means to control it. But simply annoying me does not cause me damage, so your dog can bark all it wants, unless we have a contract that says otherwise, in which case you would be in violation of that contract.
Powerchuter, could you add your town to the location in your profile so that I can skip that town when I visit NH?
Rob travels around a lot. So do I. You should probably just avoid the whole state, since you clearly think that using aggressive force to oppress others is perfectly acceptable behavior.
Joe
