Leaderboard

He we see the act of creating a human life (from an engineer's perspective).

But they can not argue my body my choice without implicitly accepting the premise that they are a being capable of choosing, ie, a rational animal. If their argument requires the axiom: I am capable of choice, why would you not use that as the foundation of your position? Like: are you capable of choice when you are unconscious? No? OK, so remember that scene in Kill Bill where the janitor has sex with the unconscious women, no problem! hey? Then you get straight to a capacity for choice or a potential for choice (and they even did in the debate, ie, we don't get to kill unconscious people) and then it is game over, either I can fuck you when you are unconscious or abortion is wrong.

Hi, EGreg I love your diligent take on AnCap theory. Apart from all the intellectually lazy comments from certain members, I am thuroughly enjoying the discussion. One thing on which I must note our agreement is that FDR is not as free as I would expect a free market to be. My disagreement with the mainstream FDR dogma is concerning violence. I have tried to start many discussions on it, as I thought nothing was out of order, especially if discussed civilly. Gavin McInnes discusses violence many times on his shows, and I agree with him that violence, particularly the initiation of it, has a moral place in society. But clearly my mind will never be changed, since we are not allowed to discuss it here.