I am trying to force you to articulate a set of causal relations upon which your

I am trying to force you to articulate a set of causal relations upon which your definitions rest as premises, and you are simply evading them.

EXISTENCE: persistent(real and noun), demonstrated(real and verb ) potential(possible knowledge demonstrated by action), ideal(meaningful but not real), supernatural(meaningful, not real, and false.).

What I have demonstrated is that :

1) Rights do not exist without others to appeal to in order to enforce them. We may want or need certain rights as potentially existential. But they only exist and you can only ‘have’ them once they are brought to potential through cooperation with others.

2) That one can physically invest in something (demonstrate an interest). One can possess something. But no concept of ‘property’ can exist without others to exchange recognition of ownership with us. One possesses something by physical control over it. One owns something when others insure it – even if by only one to one reciprocity. One possesses property only when the institution exists. One possesses property rights only when one can exercise them in a court.

3) The scope of possession is determined by your ability to defend it.

The scope of property is determined by the market. Whether that be one other or a whole empire. The minimum scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is determined by the demand for authority (the state), the market for members, the market for polities – including survival against competitors.

Now you may not realize this is an argument that the half truths of non aggression and private property and argumentation cannot survive, but that does not change the fact that they cannot survive this argument.

Thus endeth the lesson.