>... in a system where all violence is considered morally wrong (and so many things can be apparently considered violence).
You seem to be referring to the non-aggression principle. Libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral. This is not the same as "all force". Thus, self defense is moral to a libertarian, while aggression is not.
>If you can use violence to take away my access to land
You seem to be claiming a right to access any land anywhere at any time? Doesn't that conflict with government's belief that it owns the land?
>I don't see how that differs from the rest of us taking some of your income.
You also seem to see libertarians as land owners and "the rest of us" as taking income in compensation (for the land?)
Taking away someones' property is roughly equivalent. If you want to argue that nobody can own land, you can do that.
But that argument is orthogonal to libertarianism. There are libertarians who believe nobody can own land.
>> You seem to be referring to the non-aggression principle. Libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral. This is not the same as "all force". Thus, self defense is moral to a libertarian, while aggression is not.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
>> You seem to be claiming a right to access any land anywhere at any time? Doesn't that conflict with government's belief that it owns the land?
No, I'm not really talking about governments, more the abstract idea that on some level all property is theft from the commons, particularly land which is a limited resource. It seems to be a common theme amongst libertarians I've talked to on the net that they consider tax to be theft at the point of a gun, but not private land ownership even though the point of the gun is very much still there.
>> You also seem to see libertarians as land owners and "the rest of us" as taking income in compensation (for the land?)
It's not my view that libertarians are landowners, I'm talking about the attitudes of libertarians towards their land and the rights they assume around it.
>> Taking away someones' property is roughly equivalent. If you want to argue that nobody can own land, you can do that.
I don't dispute land ownership rights under our current model at all, from a utilitarian standpoint they allow society to operate, without them we would have a hard time doing a lot of things. It's the aspect of application of force being bad in one circumstance (taking my money) and not in another (get off my land or I'll kill you!).
>> But that argument is orthogonal to libertarianism. There are libertarians who believe nobody can own land.
Then I have previously only encountered the internet libertarian breed that are inconsistent in this way.
>> There is no inconsistency in saying that force is bad when used for aggression but not bad when used for self defense.
Certainly there is not. But what about land? What would give you the right to potentially kill someone (or at least use force to remove them) from a piece of land?
This question stems from conversations with internet libertarians who consider property rights (including real estate) as sacrosanct. I simply wonder what gives them rights to the land over other people, and how violence could be justified to protect them.
You seem to be referring to the non-aggression principle. Libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral. This is not the same as "all force". Thus, self defense is moral to a libertarian, while aggression is not.
>If you can use violence to take away my access to land
You seem to be claiming a right to access any land anywhere at any time? Doesn't that conflict with government's belief that it owns the land?
>I don't see how that differs from the rest of us taking some of your income.
You also seem to see libertarians as land owners and "the rest of us" as taking income in compensation (for the land?)
Taking away someones' property is roughly equivalent. If you want to argue that nobody can own land, you can do that.
But that argument is orthogonal to libertarianism. There are libertarians who believe nobody can own land.