Agalloch

And if you meet someone who asked you to call them God? Or how about Nigger? Or a Nazi when you know they aren't? I'm not saying Moslem is the equivelant to any of these, but your analogy that you should use any name requsted is flawed. As it isn't a name in this case, but a label, falling back on the common English Word Muslim is reasonable.

Don't have those linksright now sorry. But damn that argument is hilarious. Let's rewors it to reveal the insanity! "Without the state, what's to stop someone taking control of the state?" The projection and contradictary leaps statists need to take are mind boggling.

What game? Game theory doesn't apply to economics or philosophy, so somebody needs to heavily define their terms and prove their axioms apply.

Wrong. It's not that they are just unowned, its that the state uses force to prevent ownership. That's immoral, therefore you can't use UPB or any other useful or correct methodology for detening morality. If I hold a gun to your head and say kill someone, whatever choice you make is neither moral nor immoral. It's the same here, the state is holding g a gun to drivers heads, so whether thinking a horn us immoral or not is not only irrelevant, its unknowable.

Nobody is even close to the point, nearly everything said here is irrelevant. It'd be easier to see if you'd put things into a realistic context. The only thing that matters is, who owns the road, and are their rules for use of the horn being followed Nearly everything is so much simpler when you stop generalising about unrealistic scenario is without property rights and throe some actual volu.tary human interaction in there. The answer is, UPB has nothing to say about Amy situation where property is ignored.

"!=" means "not equal to" it comes from Software Development, specifically C-like languages. The factorial confusion is reasonable though, that why I prefer "<>" as in many BASIC-like languages.

If milk goes from $5 a gallon to $1 a gallon, that means the farmer must do much less work, not more. Deflation is a signof increased productivity and potential distribution. If he's doing more work, he's wasting resources in that sector. If the farmer couldn't afford lowering the price that much so soon after taking out a loan then he wouldn't have done it. If he has no choice because competitors have lowered to that point it's a signal that taking a loan out wasn't a good decision. While currency pressures deflate the prices in an entire economy, it doesn't happen immediately or uniformly. Any deflation you'd notice in the lifetime of a loan is either due to the product or because your loan was too long term for that market, which is likely already saturated by better capital sources. For example, imagine a monopoly on a highly desirable good in a sector with high costs to enter. Do you think deflatiinnin the economy would affect competitors who go a large long term loan to enter that area? Probably not, the monopoly would keep prices high because of the demand for alternatives being much more effective than currency deflation. If the competitor is providing a better alternative, the price will be determined by them as they enter the market and the massive demand they'd receive would make up for any expected deflation.

Really? You'd call the Government because someone walked through your garden. That's some seriously adult conflict resolution and social skills you're bragging about there.

I checked my Title Deeds, no mention of Mr Goveernment on there. Debunked.

I didn't say it was a free market, I asked if you thought higher labour-intensive goods were worth less than low labour-intensive goods. You do, so you don't believe the theory you're pushing. The rest of your post was sort of nonsensical to me sorry. You started talking about the results of your theory in a mathematical model that doesn't reflect reality when the question reveals the the basis of the theory is flawed regardless of the results of application. Also, a free market can have monopolies and REQUIRES scarciry. There's no violence in the situation so it definitely us a free interaction and proves you don't believe the labour theory of value is valid, only that you want it to have utility because you're jealous of and don't understand entrepreneurs.

@LibertarianSocialist: Imagine you are in the middle of a seemingly inescapable desert. You come across water and fill your bottle from it. You continue on your journey, losing track of the water and come across me. I have 10 pounds of gold on me. Would you trade the water in your bottle to me for the Gold?

Pretty terrible, but it managed to avoid outright insanity until the fourth paragraph - where it said that children born into slavery were I'm a contractual position because they could pay off their owner - which might be a record. Of course it went down hill from their with unintelligible insanity and plenty of sophism. I'm not sure how you can say this isn't full of leftist garbage op, its full of it. Especially the early circular arguments that he assumes voluntary lifetime servitude is bad, but freedom allows it, therefore bad freedom. I'm sure I missed stuff on the single read through, but I won't be taking a second and am not worried I've missed some convincing argument. I've certainly not missed anything intelligent, where intelligent isn't synonymous with verbose and arrogant.

"... Because murder is defined as unwanted killing. So far, so good, albeit tautological." I struggle to take most of what you say at your word with such blatant inaccuracies. That's not a tautology, it's basic logic. I don't want you to have made this post, but that doesn't make it not universally preferable.

I'm sure this specific case probably has more to do with the state, but I don't understand peoples sense of entitlement regarding certain drugs. Before these drugs were produced they cost of getting any was realistically billions of dollars, and they didn't complain about having to spend that to invent and produce them because it was too hard. But now that they can just nick it of someone by crying flase morality, suddenly the lower cost is somehow evil, every time.

Couldn't disagree more, you really can't open with "Logically" and not provide a proof. As far as I know, even UPB hasn't found an answer to the question of abortion morality, which I consider to be the most difficult in morality. As for being brought up unwanted, I'm full of opposing arguments, not least adoption, but I'm compelled to stick to one point as so often people will respond to the meaningless and ignore the primary point. What I consider to be the most important question in response to your position is, do you support abortions at 8 months 3 weeks and a few days?