Not really, they could be wrong, or we could be wrong but once again, this doesn’t lead us to believe that they are made by the state. I could be wrong and the dollar I have isn’t my property but it wouldn’t be my property regardless of if I have state permission or not.
There might be equivocation. Property moral rights and property legal rights. I am never talking about property legal rights. So what’s left of the objection? I could grant you that it’s not actually my property under some moral views but this doesn’t make the state legitimate, it simply wouldn’t be states’ (moral) property too. Why do you think states have a legitimate (moral) claim to the property? if it is because of laws, what about them is meaningful? Can I also write my own laws and get property?
If states determine property rights, they have a right to legislate how they are determined. This is obvious.
Some anarchies (Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War) abolished money. They upheld personal possession through “norms”, but there was no ownership of the means of production.
Latest news; U.S. dollars may be printed with Donald Trump’s picture on them. That abolishes money for me.
but they don’t. You are not understanding. The fact that people die or not does not establish anything about the right to life. The fact that slavery was legal does not tell us that it was moral to have humans as property.
Since property rights have changed dramatically under different governments, it’s obvious they are determined by law. Property Law is a standard, first year course in law school.
If you can’t see that, this discussion is unproductive.
Slavery was controversial ever since the notion of “natural rights” emerged. It was “justified” by prejudices and lies. These would have been unnecessary if natural rights were not an accepted notion.
Humans are fallible and capable of undermining the rights of others, I think this makes states morally justified in having a law enforcing agent, as if rights are to be meaningful, then there must be a public agent capable of protecting them. Assuming that the laws enforced by the state are just, then the state is morally permissible to use limited coercion in order to enforce those laws.
What’s a “public agent” and why a “public agent” in particular?
Well, I think everyone is morally allowed to do what’s just, right? So, sure, if the laws are just (and coercion for those laws is just), then all right. But what’s special about states here?
If I make my own “laws” and those are just too, is it morally permissible for me to enforce them?
What I am talking about is precisely this: I make my own “law” which is just a copy of a state’s law, for example, such that if the state law is just, mine, being the same, is just too. But, despite this, me enforcing my law would be considered wrong.
You can do it the easy way or the hard way, when in Rome do as the Romans do. One must make an effort to learn the laws and customs of the place one resides in or is touring. Homework is not just for children. It’s a bad idea, for example, to take a green hanky when visiting Libya. Also, as a country that values its own culture it would be nice if there’s a short orientation (a short 5 to 6 minute video will do just fine) on the do’s and don’ts for visitors. It takes 2 to tango, but I don’t recommend North Korean style chaperoning. Anarchy isn’t good and neither is big brother. It’s not as easy as turning a knob to tune into your favorite radio station.
He claims that it is prudent for people to empower the state otherwise there will be a constant war of all against all.
This is a perfectly respectable philososphical position. Actors decide on a course because it is ratiobal, obtain social support and then protect it from defectors
That does not mean that there are not reasonable arguments against excessive state power and abuse. It just means that they are not arguments about an objective morality.