It's like if someone offers to sell you the Eiffel tower

well i mean wouldn't that mean that the legitimacy of owning property by purchasing it is contingent on that property being originally acquired in a way that is legitimate?

@The Electric Lizard without the use/threat of force, property rights cand and will be violated even in the presence of a justice system

can*

That would require us to go back thousands of years to figure out who should own property, We can simply continue how we currently are

he has been saying that ET

We have a police force and justice system and that is it

The way I understand it TEL said the use of force is not neccessary to protect property rights

They prevent violence and enforce property rights

And that should be the only thing the government does

They prevent violence by using force

No that is not what i said

Force is legitimate if someone is breaking the limited set of rules like going into someone's property without their consent

Ok, what did you mean by "it"?
https://gyazo.com/dc2af85ada521b358982ec46c8e32b68

I mean't the individual

You don't have to use force to defend the individual?

The business owner does not have to get arms to defend their business

He can use the justice system

Wait

The individual doesn't have to use force to defend property rights?

Wut

I'm trying to decipher your argument

but the justice system requires the use of force, yes? @The Electric Lizard
just trying to make your position on the clear.

I am saying that the owner of the property will not have to defend their own property using violence or force, They could of course but they won't have to, So they can turn to the justice system to use violence on their behalf

Ok yeah, that's correct

I basically just believe that the only thing the government should do is maintain a police force and justice system to maintain order and resolve disputes

Yeah you want the right amount of justice and order

A balance between the two

Too much justice or order and there would be too little freedom. Too much freedom and there would be too little justice or order.

Pretty much, Infinite freedom for the individual is obviously impossible but i think what we should have is a sane and orderly society which allows as much freedom as humanly possible while still maintaining that order

I agree

We should go as close as we can to Anarchism and maximum freedom while still maintaining an orderly society

That is basically the libertarian argument, sounds like minarchism to me.

They aren't that different

I used to agree with that position until I started to believe that this fails on a moral level

Practically yes, it can theoretically be done, but the lack of morality is what ruins it.

How so?

So it won't happen unless the according values are taught.

Let's say we have a Libertarian society as i have described and someone doesn't have any morals and just goes out and attacks someone, In that Libertarian society they could be killed in self defence or could be jailed for the crime

Because if you allow for some infringement on freedom as a minarchist, then two things would be true:
1) You want freedom to be infringed upon
2) You want to control the amount of infringement upon freedom

Those two things cannot work together without a specific set of morals