Here's the problem: no moral statement of any kind whatsoever has ever been "proven".

Brian, my glibertarian friend, its not just that libertarianism doesn't "prove" its foundations, its that is foundational assumption is implausible and they don't even try to prove it -- or even make it seem plausible. I'm fine with rights derived from some other more fundamental principle, like wellbeing, but just assuming these ghostly entities called rights and then proceding to describe them by talking out of one's ass is a mug's game.

"Your buddy Bentham pushed utilitarianism, which is similarly nonsense on stilts, for the simple reason that its conclusions are only valid if you accept its standard of value without proof."

Yeah but everyone does, bro. Are you saying that people's wellbeing is not valuable? very few philosophers woudl agree with you on that, my glibertarian friend. Almost everyone outside of a few ascetics believes that wellbeing is valuable. There is plenty of room for argumentation about what exactly wellbeing consists of and how to measure it but at least it is a real thing that there can be some basis for argumenttation about. Once you start positing invisible fundamental "rights" there is no room for argument. You either believe or you don't. I take nothing on faith.

"If there are no rights and no one owns themselves, then I can do whatever the $%&% I want."

This objection is much less significant than you understand. As long as we are talking about non-fundamental rights, then I am glad to go along with some version of people having ights and people not having license to cause others harm on those grounds. But libertarianism depends on a much larger and absolutely implausible claim about ghostly entities. I stopped believing in Casper the Friendly Ghost when I was about 5.

You have a lot to learn about political philosophy, bro. Why do you think they call it GLIBertarianism? Its just too easy -- and convenient for people who want assuage their feelings of guilt over their greedy behavior.

BTW: how do all of you naive libertarians deal with the Nozick problem? Presumably you know who Nozick is. Well, even Nozick ended up repudiating key parts of his famous libertarian argument. Two of those key points are:

1) You will inevitably have to resort to force or accept anarchy. A blanket prohibition on coercion based on a blanket natural right is incompatible with government of any kind at all. Are you folks anarchists?

2) There is a deep and ongoing problem with the justice of the original distribution. Ineluctably all property claims are vitiated by the fact that much property is ill gotten or was ill gotten. All the subsequent transfers of such property are therefore tainted. Over time, the taint spreads and appplies to some extent to virtually any property you can point to.

Redistribution is both inevtiable and just.

So suck on that you glibertarian twits.

"That's not the fundamental premise of utilitarianism."

Uh, yes it is. Its certainly the fundamental premise of my own brand of consequentialism.

"The fundamental premise of utilitarianism is that well-being is fungible."

No it isn't. There are many ways to put together a consequentialist theory and fungibility the way you mean it is not required.

You're pretty good at asserting that your opponents' are wrong/stupid etc. But actually showing that your opponents are wrong? Ehhhh...not so much.

Which makes sense since naively naked assertion is what glibertarianism is all about...

So are you all going to confront my arguments head on or just take pot shots around the edges?

What arguments? You have none.

Actually if you bother to read my posts you'll see I most certainly did. Now you're just being argumentative in addition to being naive and non-responsive.

You wrote a post and claimed that one philosopher decided to become a state worshiper. So? If you are going to ague by authority then go ahead; I certainly will not stop you.

LOL. You obviously aren't very well read on this subject are you, son? I didn't just quote "one philosopher". Robert Nozick is perhaps the leading libertarian philosopher of all time, certainly of the last half century or so. You apparently have never even heard of him. LOL.

You are also apparently an anarchist, which conclusively establishes that your views are not serious ones.

Run along little boy. Come back maybe in your sophomore or junior year and we'll see how much progress you make.

These reporters are so in the tank they remind me of Dennis Hopper's photojournalist character in Apocalypse Now talking about Colonel Kurtz:

"Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll... uh... well, you'll say "hello" to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you. He won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say, "do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"... I mean I'm no, I can't... I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas..."

Didn't see your post but I have seen Apocalypse Now about 20 times.