I think I see the problem now. You're confusing a moral principle you personally endorse with a conclusion that necessarily follows from logic.

Your entire philosophy appears to depend on three claims:

1. Nobody wants their own will violated.
2. Nobody's will has objectively greater value than anyone else's.
3. Therefore, nobody should violate another person's will.

Except 3 does not logically follow from 1 and 2.

I can acknowledge that you don't want your will violated, acknowledge that your will has no objectively demonstrable superiority over mine, and still decide to violate it.

You can call that immoral. You can call me selfish. But you cannot call it logically contradictory without introducing an additional moral premise establishing that I ought to respect your will.

You're attempting to derive an "ought" from an "is," and you've simply skipped the step where you're supposed to justify it.

But your theory of property rights gets even more interesting.

You claim that ownership requires two things: wanting exclusive authority over something and not violating anyone else's will to obtain it. You then assert that whichever claim existed first takes precedence.

Okay. Let's test that.

I hereby declare my desire for exclusive authority over the entire surface of Mars.

I've violated nobody's will in making this declaration, and my desire predates the desires of any future Martian settlers.

By your stated criteria, I've satisfied both requirements for ownership.

When the first settlers arrive, are they violating my will by occupying my property?

If not, why not?

What additional requirement have I failed to satisfy, and more importantly, where did you logically derive that requirement from your original premises?

Because this illustrates the fundamental problem with your "logical order of operations."

Something happening first doesn't establish that it has moral authority over something happening later. That's an additional normative rule you've introduced without justification.

You keep using examples of murder, rape, and theft because those are cases where your conclusions conveniently align with moral intuitions most people already share.

But demonstrating that your framework agrees with conventional morality in obvious cases doesn't prove your framework is logically necessary. It doesn't even establish that your principles work consistently in less obvious cases.

And the funniest part is your insistence that I "already agree" with your philosophy because I supposedly have no logical choice.

No. I can agree with your conclusions about murder, theft, and consent without accepting your reasoning for arriving at them.

That's not a contradiction. It's an elementary distinction between the validity of an argument and the truth of its conclusion.

So here's what I'd genuinely like you to demonstrate:

Can you derive your principle of nonaggression, and your rule that earlier desires establish property rights, using only your two original premises, without introducing any additional moral assumptions?

Because until you can, you haven't demonstrated that morality is objectively dictated by logic.

You've described your preferred moral framework, assumed its foundational rules are true, and then mistaken the resulting consistency for proof.

That's not a logical derivation. It's circular justification with extra

What exactly is this "logical order of operations" you're referring to? Can you define its premises and demonstrate how you draw your conclusions from them?

You also declare that "public property is a misnomer" without offering a single argument to support that assertion. There is quite a large body of legal precedent that says otherwise.

Your entire response seems to consist of declaring your opinions to be fundamental truths, wrapping them in unnecessarily convoluted language, and then insisting that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand logic.

That's not logical reasoning. That's intellectual posturing.

I'd be genuinely interested in seeing you express your argument as a set of clearly defined premises and a conclusion. Preferably without using the word "logical" as a substitute for actually demonstrating logic.

This is the most braindead take I have ever heard. What if someone owns a bathroom and decides that not only can trans people not use it, but they don't want black people to use it, or jews, or muslims, or christians. People can just discriminate however they want because they own something? Also governments can absolutely own things you fucking dipshit, public property is clearly a thing, all over the world. I'm honestly hoping your a bot because I cannot imagine a living breathing human being that is this fucking stupid.

I agree with you, the primaries are where you send the message, not the general election. I am trans and a dem socialist, it sucks that this is the position we are put in. But when it comes down to voting for a centrist dem or a republican, the choice is as plain to me as choosing between a punch in the stomach or being lined up in front of the wall and shot.

And what republican has ever been the lesser evil in the past 40 years?

It sucks that we can't get actual good candidates, but one party wants to throw people like us into camps and the other will ban us from playing sports so they can try and win a few more votes. Yes, both sides are bad, but one is infinitely worse.

I'm from the southern US so not even a little.

Because it is very dense. A heavier bullet carries more momentum, will travel further for a given speed and be less prone to drift from wind, thus more accurate. Lead is just the cheapest densest stuff available. Bismuth is becoming the popular non-toxic alternative, but it is a fair bit more pricey than lead.

It was a truly sickining display, the audience started chanting "USA USA" while 2 men held the woman down and another repeatedly punched her in the face.

I agree with you for the most part, but what I'm saying is having 2-3 months extra of your regular foodstuffs is just good preparedness I don't have cases full of MREs, I have a shelf in my basement that has some canned goods, dry beans, rice, quinoa, and other assorted shelf stable foods. It's all stuff we regularly eat anyways . Forget about all the end of the world nonsense; natural disasters happen, wars happen, droughts and famines happen. Yes be politically active, and build community support groups. But it also never hurts to be prepared for an emergency.

The website you mentioned is full of idiots for sure, and I would normally say that prepping is also pretty dumb. But given the current oil and gas crisis/fertilizer shortage, super el-nino, climate change, the depletion of the ogalla aquifer, and all the other droughts across the US. It's likely that there will be wide spread food and energy scarcity within the next 10 years.

I think stockpiling food is smart move right now. Not in the sense that you should dig a bunker to fill up, but my family have stocked up a 3 month supply in case of emergency. Its mostly just extra staples we already eat, we rotate the stock as we normally eat through those goods in our day to day.

I honestly hope we're just being paranoid about things, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Plus it doesn't really cost us much to be prepared. A few 50lb bags of rice and beans can sustain a person for quite a while and costs less than $100

The Black Ocean series by J.S. Morin is one of my lesser known faves. It has a kind of weird mixture of SciFi tech and ancient magic that's really fun.

Same, I was fully onboard till I read that.