John Corvidae

David, I appreciate where you are going with this. I think this is a multilayered argument. First, if I have a financial problem, first I have savings, then I have credit, then I have family, then friends, and then church/community, and then finally the government to turn to, in that order, for help. That's my personal idea of it, so yours/others might differ. Typically the 'liberal' says "what if you don't have any of those sources?" They never say "why" in their example of the person who has no one to turn to except the government? Their argument generally does not make any sense. That's one layer. Second. If I want to put forward generally that it's a good idea to help one's neighbor, I think that's fine. But when I take that idea and use it to justify using force to "help" I just changed the subject. We're not talking about whether it makes sense to give to those in need, anymore. We're talking about whether it's ethical to rob peaceful people at gunpoint. To play 'Robin Hood.' UPB handles that part of the discussion, so there's nothing to discuss there. Somehow people conflate the two, and act as if they are the same topic. That I honestly don't know how to deal with. I don't know how to make a compelling emotional argument (that's what I think we need in this conversation) that manages to get our neighbors/brothers helped without hurting our other neighbors/brothers in the process.

Clear sign of the times. Time to take your kids out of the propaganda center. This is a slow and deliberate march toward a Brave New World. I'm sure this is just the first of a long line of 'family-branded' state propaganda.

This is like the term 'meeting of the minds.'

I was thinking about something similar to this topic, today. Our phone/internet activity is being monitored and recorded. We are treated like we are less than human, in this regard. I'm annoyed. The best way to protect our privacy is to refuse to deal with these groups, or to play the same games they do, and they are very good. But since most of these services are free, what can we really expect, other than walking away from the service, or accepting the problems that come with it? I think companies like this just open up a niche for paid services. All you have to do is present a better product, and treat your customer like a customer. Someone said this about Facebook..."you are the product." I think that says it all. We're all 'products'.

You could go simpler with something I believe passes UPB. No unchosen positive obligations. Giving blood is really no different from taxation. Everyone has a limited supply of money (blood) from which they can give all of what is required to survive(lose enough blood to die), or a percentage(give a portion) to help someone else. Taxation involves taking it by force (which would be the same in your blood example) and the moral case is no different. In modern societies, a lack of money could mean death, same for a lack plasma, or platelets. If Stef tackles taxation in the book, which I think he does, try to view giving blood in the same regard and see if you still have questions.

I definitely appreciate the perspectives in this thread. The 'man on the inside' argument sounds good. On the other hand, so does the strict philosophical approach. This post does an overview of agorist philosophy. I don't know how familiar you are with it. The choices you make determine whether or not you will have trouble looking in the mirror against attacks. Also I would sum Stef's views as follows (though of course let him or his work speak for him), Stef would tell you you did not load the gun or point it at anyone, and not to worry about how you work for a living, for most professions. Speaking of Stef, I would recommend just asking him, if you really want to know what he thinks. To continue my .02 about it, I think he might say the legal profession is pretty close to the "lion's den," and that you might consider something else, but again, the 'man on the inside' sounds cool. Maybe he will find that appealing, too. Also the "need for an an-cap lawyer" is completely true, and he might agree that if you can stay the course and not lose your integrity, you should totally work that way. Now, all that said...have I gone in enough conflicting directions yet(?)...I could also imagine him saying that both the legal profession is a soul sucking profession, as well as saying there's no way you'll pay for school debt and be able to feed yourself by protecting people from the state. That you'll end up wasting your time doing plea bargains, which ultimately help the state or you'll fight cases that are not worth your time and do a lot of losing when it's not worth it. He has said on more than one occasion that lawyers are some of the most unhappy people...but that said, I'd guess he says it in accordance with 'man, know thyself' and much of the stress of being a lawyer comes from accepting and working with a system that does not make sense emotionally or intellectually. He has also said on numerous occasions we can't reform the state from the inside (of course you are not trying to do this, but...) Can you tell I have absolutely no idea what where Stef might land on this? Seriously I think the stress, debt, and effective state employment/slavery puts the practicality of becoming an AnCap lawyer in the realm of a Batman style project (one-man justice funded by a wealth of resources). Any chance you could share with us how you plan to pay for it, why you started Law school, even though you were sure you are an AnCap? My experience with the state and with legal defense is that it's a rigged game. The law is designed to criminalize normal activity, and the court rules are then designed to make it difficult to nullify any chance at true defense. You might also read from the blog I linked to, about jury nullification. There are some interesting posts there. It is possible you know far more about the legal system than I do, and can envision some 'loopholes' an attorney could get through to produce an AnCap result. But isn't it more likely you'll end up doing the same thing all the other lawyers do? If you become a lawyer, to work cases about laws written by politicians, who are lawyers, against a prosecutor, who is a lawyer, what new thing are you bringing to the table, as a lawyer, that would be beneficial? Check out the Marc Stevens show, if you have the time. I would also point out that anything special you could do that might actually be effective would likely either piss off a judge or get you disbarred. This is the 'conventional wisdom' that I've heard about the legal profession. You might find out none of this is true. Again, I would question your motives for 'joining.' Are you in it for the money? Did you do your undergraduate work and find any success underwhelming? Or just the opposite. Are you related to Bruce Wayne ? You might also read Aaron Carey's book Worthless. <end of soapbox long-winded post> Hope this is helpful.

Just a good list of content would help. Anyone know of one? I find myself in the same boat. When I look for entertainment, I want something stimulating, and mainstream entertainment is extremely repetitive and then 'moral of the story' usually does not make sense.

I didn't go to law school, but I got some letters after my name, too, and became an AnCap while working on that degree. I recently listened to a Sunday show and a woman on that show said it well. You go through a period of wanting to tell everyone and then a period of keeping it to yourself. I am a very expressive person and I still want to tell everyone! I just reserve it now, for people I deem appropriate. If you are familiar with some good mainstream Libertarian rhetoric and positions, I would just recite them in conversation, if I were you. I deal with this at work, too, and it's how I handle it. There are some solid (and extreme) Libertarian writers. Thomas Sowell comes to mind. Even Milton Friedman said some things that feel good to the heart of a true voluntaryist, and you can regurgitate some of that, and hopefully maintain your sanity. I do not think you will ever get away from it. I do not know why you want to stay in law school and continue, and (in all fairness) I have strong doubts as to whether or not you are making a good decision, but it is yours to make. I think the correct answer for us who believe in civilized societies, is to turn our backs on violence completely. That said, I have not figured out a way to do it and maintain my sanity. I am working on one, though.

Interesting. Thoughts on this?