> I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: > 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violenc

> I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: > 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery Violence exists regardless of whether "positive rights" exist. You are stating this again, but you haven't proven any kind of relationship beyond the tautological one. I can't move on to the third point until you clear this up. Everything else seems like a distraction: If we can agree that violence and slavery is bad, why can't we agree that some kind of retribution is required? Maybe this is why: > something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. They're excellent arguments. Even agreeing to be "employed" for room-and-board in exchange for work could be slavery, especially if the person agreeing doesn't know if they have other choices. "Stolen land" was still stolen. What's the good reason for a statute-of-limitations on this? I think you are dismissing these out-of-hand, and if you can't address them, maybe this is what is wrong with your entire philosophy? > There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. Of course there is. What are you going to use to defend your property besides violence?