Here this puritanical libertarian wishes to remind himself and any who read that justification is not impossible, that reason does speak (and indeed reason is indistinguishable from the god), and that there is a test that even a human animal can use to vet the speech of any who claims reason. If one finds that the opposite of a proposition (representation of reality) is impossible (necessarily false), then reason blesses the original proposition.
For example: it is impossible “that two things plus two things do not equal four things”. It is impossible “that a thing be both red and green all over”. It is impossible “that a colored thing take up no space.” It is impossible “that three straight lines intersecting to form an enclosed shape are not such that the three angles add up to 180 degrees”. It is impossible “that a man act but has not goal.” It is impossible “that a man act but has not judged the goal aimed at to be superior to the alternatives.” It is impossible “that a man acts but employ no means to act.” It is impossible that either A or B, and not A and not B.” It is impossible “that the supply of a good increases but its price does not decrease.”
In each of those statements, and many more, the expresser of such statements needs point to no proof beyond the impossibility of things being otherwise. This is enough. Of course, one can turn to the world and experience and show an instance, an example. But it is an instantiation of reason and not a proof of reasonability. This is how natural light shines. There is much we can do with geometry, arithmetic, logic, economics. What if reason, the god, the impossibility of impossibility spoke in the realm of action such that light was shed on our relations and the permissible and impermissible? Lend an ear.
It is impossible “that any human acts without the judgment that the means employed are under the exclusive control of the agent acting.” Try it, not as proof, but so that the light of reason shines. Try acting without also having judged that the means employed in the action are under your exclusive control. Speak. Get up. Sit down. Calm yourself. Ponder. Eat. Do anything. DO anything, and what you will find is that it is impossible to get going without having judged that means that you employ to be yours. Attack my argument and you will encounter the same.
What you will find, with just a moments reflection, is the impossibility of not being committed to the truth of the exclusive use claim called a private property right. You understand it. You know its limits. And you know that all the others out there acting are committed to the same exclusive use right with their own bodies.
It is impossible to not be committed to exclusive use private property rights. Oh, he will say that he can live with the collective providing him with its guidance to which he defers. He will say it. But in saying it he will deny what he is saying. For in the moment he will not consult the collective, nor will he define the collective, nor if he boldly gets that far will he provide in-principle reasonability about the limit of this collective ownership over himself. It will all crumble in shambles in darkness.
That reason speaks so clearly and sweetly is not hard to appreciate. It does so in arithmetic, geometry, economics, logic. That it does so in a way that sheds light on the limits of aggression is frustrating only to he who was enjoying the position of initiated aggression. He is parasite, predator, thief, body snatcher, murderer, the state.
That reason is not listened to is also not hard to appreciate. The human animal is animal. Its humanity is a matter of achievement. Achievement requires investment. Investment requires saving. Saving requires profit. Profit requires either aggression or attracting through voluntary production and trade.