[headsonpikes]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I would guess that my aversion to over-dependence on strictly logical considerations as to the merit of an argument is rooted in my early aversion to 'ideological' arguments for the merits of socialism.

I firmly believe that theses about the observable world are best confirmed or refuted by facts about that world, not by analysis of the terms. Over-reliance on analysis leads one to the error of reductionism, the most dangerous of all logical fallacies.

Your 'Candidean' assessment of the foundation of the rights to property, the exclusivity of marriage relations, etc. is based, it seems to me, on the belief that humankind will always do the rational and prudent thing.

I think the 20th Century is an adequate rebuttal of that view.

Abandon your calculations! Affirm your life, and the heritage of your ancestors.

[Dimensio]

Your 'Candidean' assessment of the foundation of the rights to property, the exclusivity of marriage relations, etc. is based, it seems to me, on the belief that humankind will always do the rational and prudent thing.

I think I misstated something. I never intended to imply that humans are ever rational and prudent. I've typically seen humans as very often quite selfish (not completely self-centered, but small-focused) and short-sighted. Humans tend to behave themselves in societies partly because they ultimately benefit from doing so. (there are other motivations -- for example, most people probably never commit murder not just because of legal restrictions but also because they've never wanted to do it).