Originally Posted by u-Bob

Ethics, that basic set of rules that determines what is right and what is wrong, don't change depending on the situation. If they did, than people wouldn't be responsible for their actions because they wouldn't be able to determine beforehand that their actions were right or wrong.

It is clear that a lot of people these days no longer understand the concept of justice. As the French philosopher and economist Federic Bastiat once said; 'Justice is a negative concept. It's the absence of injustice'.

Murder, theft, torture, rape,... are all acts of injustice. When someone tries to murder you, you have right to defend yourself (and even use violence to do so). If someone tries to rape you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone tries to steal your property, you have right to defend yourself and protect your property.

Why? because you are a human being, an individual. And every human being is master of his own body. His body is his property. (If you don't agree with that, than there are only 2 alternatives: either there are 2 classes: the owners and the owned, those that own other human beings and the human beings that are the property of the first class. This option represents a kind of slavery and I'm sure we all agree that slavery is a form of injustice. The other alternative is that every human being's body is property of the collective. An unworkable option because if everybody's body belongs to the collective, then how will the collective make decisions? by voting? but if the parts that make up the collective aren't allowed to use their own body (because it's property of the collective) then how can they vote (use part of their body to express their vote or use their brain to decide how to vote)...? so the only workable option is that every human being is master of his own body).

Every human being has the right to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't commit an act of injustice (aggression). every human being has the right to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or another human being's property. All the rights we think so highly of in the West (like for example the right of free speech) are nothing more than different ways to exercise the right to use your own body and property. Free speech = using your own brain to come up with an idea, using your own vocal cords to produce the words you want, using your own ink and paper to write what you want.

You as a human being have the right to grow your own food, work and buy food, build things, sell/trade/buy things,... but you don't have the right to steal from others because they have something you want. You don't have the right to kill others because they have something you want. You don't have the right to kill others because their store sells more products than your store. You don't have the right to kill others because they just bought the that last green widget you were hoping to buy some day. ...

You are right, we have to draw the line somewhere. We draw the line between justice and injustice. You have rights because you are a human being, an individual. The second you no longer respect other human beings' rights, the second you no longer see people as individuals, that's the moment you lose your humanity, that's the moment you go back to the animal kingdom: survival of the fittest, survival of he who has the most power or the biggest gun, survival of he who can best come up with a way to convince others to join him in committing acts of injustice.