>An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain.
Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights.
>Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed.
Violating people's rights with the "consent of the majority" is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The justification is just an ideological cover for violating others rights.
>How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision?
Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights (including the right to not be robbed to provide for the poor), determining who owns what.
>Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?
I don't know, because there are many factors to consider. If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.
>Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights ..., determining who owns what.
And how exactly do they determine that? What happens when people disagree about ownership? What makes the government's decisions more valid than the individuals'?
>If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner.
So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm?
>The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.
And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake?
>is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies. Power imbalances will always enable abuse, but democracy at least ensures that the power imbalance benefits more people than it harms.
Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights.
>Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed.
Violating people's rights with the "consent of the majority" is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The justification is just an ideological cover for violating others rights.
>How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision?
Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights (including the right to not be robbed to provide for the poor), determining who owns what.
>Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?
I don't know, because there are many factors to consider. If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.