Replies

Given the explanation for the concept of property rights above, in what way does my philosophy undermine that concept? What is your philosophy?

In regards to your use of my logic, your use is inadequate because you change a fundamental premise. I do not regard "conduct in society" to be something that the "majority" always has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate, by force of law. The guidelines for this are that the "majority" can only deem what is appropriate or inappropriate on its own property. No majority has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do on my property, so long as my actions do not bring coercion or fraud against the property of another person (including the person's body).

In regards to why the drunk driver is driving drunk, it is because, quite simply, he is reneging on his agreement. It is because of such a likely possibility that we have law enforcement bodies to objectively enforce such agreements. If people did not renege on their agreements, then law enforcement bodies would not be necessary.

Given the explanation for the concept of property rights above, in what way does my philosophy undermine that concept?

In a situation where there are co-owners, you are dismissive of the property rights of the minority of the co-owners.

What is your philosophy?

I don't know that it is as organized or complete as a philosophy, but I believe that property rights are not fundamental rights like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If nothing else, property rights are contingent upon Mankind's ability to make something into a property. (Remember, I don't buy your "the body is propety" argument.) An individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. There can be vast areas where it is hard to figure out where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. One way to resolve such situations to fight it out. Another way is to weigh the cost in rights against the benefit in rights. This is essentially what people do when they form societies and agree to formal rules for dealing with property rights. These rules can vary from society to society. (I never set this down in words till you asked your question, so consider it a work in progress.)

I do not regard "conduct in society" to be something that the "majority" always has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate, by force of law.

Me neither.

The guidelines for this are that the "majority" can only deem what is appropriate or inappropriate on its own property.

The guidelines depend on what the members of society have agreed to.

No majority has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do on my property, so long as my actions do not bring coercion or fraud against the property of another person (including the person's body).

Then the majority can not tell a person that the person cannot drive while drunk on property that belongs to that person just as much as it does to anyone else. However, the majority would have that right if it was agreed to by all that they have that right.

In regards to why the drunk driver is driving drunk, it is because, quite simply, he is reneging on his agreement.

That's an unsupported assumption. It's more likely that the drunk driver is driving drunk because he never agreed not to, or because any such agreement was coerced and is therefore invalid.