Private property doesn't merely reflect reality. There's a gap in your argument that you jump right over.

You're right that we all have to eat and that under any circumstances that we would have to work to find food in some way. What private property does is deny individuals free access to land that they could use to find food. It's not that hard to imagine a hunter gatherer society without exclusive rights in land, i.e. a society in which one person cannot deny other people the ability to find food in a specific place.

Furthermore, private property essentially demands that you can't even have a place to sleep, sit or stand without providing some value in exchange. Thus, private property demands more than existence demands.

It's been fun, Ron, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

We agree that words have meanings. We disagree about what the meaning is. You want democracy to mean "mob rule," and it just doesn't mean that. Check a dictionary. Here I'll even help you out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

To repeat, once again, your definition of democracy is no longer in current usage. It is merely your definition. You won't find political scientists or political theorists or even pure philosophers talking about "democracy" as "mob rule." You're welcome to live in the 18th century if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to join you.

Pure logic doesn't have any substantive content. You must be misunderstanding the word substantive. But hey, we got that dictionary, so here goes: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substantive

Here's a proof by logic:

P --> Q

~Q

---

~P

In order to give this any substantive content, you have to tell me what propositions are represented by P and Q. Those would be your assumptions, and, guess what, we're probably going to disagree. Look, even math is based on unproven axioms.

My point is that objectivity in politics is impossible because any argument about how the world ought to be organized relies on unproven substantive propositions that are disputable. Nothing can be objective which is based on disputable and unproven propositions. You haven't done any work to dispute that.

Who said that 4 million people doing something makes it right? How did you even get that out of what I wrote? That's a complete non sequitur.

I am not operating under the fallacy that complete freedom would allow people to hit other people. You've created a strawman argument to attack that has nothing to do with what I said. It's clear why you wanted to attack that strawman--it's an argument you have much practice with I'm sure, but it's not what I was arguing.

What I did say was that traffic laws restrict our personal freedom. Shouldn't I have the freedom to drive as fast as I want under any circumstances? That is personal freedom and it does not necessarily infringe on anyone else's rights. It is possible for me to drive just as fast as I want without ever hurting someone, and certainly without having the intent to hurt someone. This isn't a fist-meets-nose situation. It's a "personal freedom is restricted for reasons other than creating personal freedom" situation. If you don't have any way to respond to this, then you should stop believing in your ideology.

See, the little proof I put up above is called "modus tollens" or "denying the consequent." And I would inform it's content this way:

P = "the one purpose of government is to prevent the initiation of force"

Q = "we should not support any law which exists for reasons other than preventing the initiation of force."

So, If the one purpose of government is to prevent the initiation of force, then we should not support any law which exists for reasons other than preventing the initiation of force. (P --> Q) However, we support some such laws, specifically traffic laws. (~Q) Therefore, it is not the case that the one purpose of government is to prevent the initiation of force (~P). See how that works? This is called a "counterexample." Logic plus content refutes your position.

Or do you want to bite the bullet and say that we shouldn't have traffic laws? Those are your options. In order to defeat my argument, you have to assert ~~Q, because that is equivalent to Q. I dare you to do it or to find another way to respond.

Next:

"Proper property laws are acknowledgement that people are entitled to what they've earned, and that people are not entitled to what they've not earned."

There are two responses here: First, you have admitted my point then? My argument was that property laws reflect an preexisting judgment about the organization of society, and that as such they require people who disagree with them to submit to the judgment of other people--something you think is horrible. But again, we can go right to modus tollens:

P = "people should not be forced to submit to the judgment of others.

Q = "laws that require people to submit to the judgment of others should not exist."

So, if people should not be forced to submit to the judgment of others, then laws that require people to submit to the judgment of others should not exist. (P --> Q) However, such laws do exist, specifically property laws. (~Q) Therefore, it is not the case that people should not be forced to submit to the judgment of others. (~P)

Again, you're on the horns of denying ~Q or giving up your beliefs. It's your choice.

Second, what you have said is essentially tautological. You can only be entitled to something if you have earned that thing, because "to earn" something means to become entitled to it in some way. That doesn't provide you any ground for advancing your argument.

I'm not making society the primary basis for rights. What I am saying is that individual rights allow groups of individuals to enact valid laws that restrict the personal freedom of other people even if those other people do not agree with those laws. My position is consistent.

You're right that I am not a teacher, but I do feel like I've been putting on a clinic.