DaveDoggOwns

1)This IMO is the only one that even comes close to a valid argument, but only if you assume CO2 emissions are a pollutant. All the other pollutants the author lists can be easily dealt with in a free market. 2)This is a fallacious use of consequentialism. Consequentialism prioritizes what is good for the larger contex over what is good in the smaller contex. A true consequentialist would not concern himself with "life boat scenarios" at all. 3)Why would people live next to neighbors who were threatening? This argument is contex dropping. 4)The Non-Aggression Principle does NOT mean merely the prohibition of physical force. The prohibition of the initiation of force is just one major aspect of it. It is the prohibition of aggression. Fraud clearly is an attempt to hurt someone for one's own gain by dispossessing someone of property by dishonest means. That is aggression. 5)Gigantic Straw Man. Property rights does NOT mean you get to do whatever you want to people on your property. 6)The problem is nobody is BORN into parenthood. The state however tells us we are born into a "social contract". There is no moral equivalence whatsoever.

I grew up from that whole Sega Genesis period all the way to the Xbox first generation era. I'VE SEEN IT ALL. I've seen the best platformers, the best RPG's, the best shooters, the best arcade games, the best fighting games, etc, etc, etc, and absolutely nothing impresses me anymore. i haven't bought a new console since the Gamecube. IMO that was the last good console.

Describing how choice occurs is not a refutation of the existence of choice. It only proves that determinism and free will are two ways of understanding the same thing. (See neutral monism)

Wrong. The purpose of anarchy is to enforce morality consistently. Saying "there is no such thing as a legitamite authority" is a pronouncement of nihilism.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as an anarchist. The rule "there should be no rulers" is self-detonating. If anyone on FDR does invoke the concept of "anarchy" they are actually referring to statelessness. Not the lack of rulers. This is the problem with your comments on this thread. You're not using the same definitions of words the people on this website typically use.

Ah, I see. You are confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism. Rulership =/= statism. Hierarchy =/= statism. Again, you're confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism.