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?

1. I agree the wording is a little unfortunate, but that isn't Stef's fault, it's very common in evolutionary biology to say that the "reason" for X trait is Y, where Y is very often procreation. More correct I suppose they mean the reason for X is that any species not having X trait died out, usually because of lack of procreation, or that it's not a reason, but the evolutionary cause of. However, I think the meaning was still clear enough. 2. Stef didn't say "The reason we have a desire to make children", he said "The reason we have sexual desire". Having a lack of desire to make children has no bearing on any of this at all. We haven't had any evolution since the invention of birth control, and so even a bisexual with sexual desire, but without the desire to have children, could quite easily find themselves with a child as far as our genes "know" (where they don't really know, as per point 1, they just exist because it's taken as a given). If lack of desire for children is purely genetic - I will probably later make the point that that's also an incorrect assumption - then it's possible that in 100 or so generations, people with a lack of desire for children will die out because of education and birth control. That doesn't mean human sexual desire didn't evolve successfully in order to produce children though, because that's the reason for almost every single human trait. 3. Even if Stef had said that ("The reason we have a desire to make children"), it'd be correct. It's a species trait, he said the reason we, not the reason you, or bisexuals, or anybody else. The reason we have canines is (as far as I know) is to chew meat. Not chewing meat doesn't make that not a species trait, because other species traits include a brain (the prefrontal cortex I believe) which allows deviation from genetics and the ability to adapt our personalities and desires in a single generation due to circumstances, both genetically (epigenetically) and psychologically. 4. People having sexual desire is a genetic trait. It's quite possible that not wanting children, and being bisexual are not hereditary. If a mutation (obviously I'm not necessarily calling either of those things mutations, I don't know, it's an analogy) causes someone to be born without the aforementioned canines, it doesn't mean that the species doesn't grow them as a standard trait and that the evolutionary cause was our need to eat meat.

Haha, this is my favourite thing to be voted down for so far. I quote insanity, with no comment and get voted down while the original post which was full of false assertions, tautologies like this and served only to be argumentative got, no negative votes.

"May choose not to" isn't an argument, it's just an admission that you care enough to increased the amount you'd give to cover the difference. I wouldn't "give" money to "the poor" in a free society, because I genuinely believe it's the worst way to help people. The point of getting rid of violence is to allow my freedom of conscience, not to find new ways to deny everyone it. Let me not give and try to help to poor that way, and I won't stop you from giving your hard earned cash to them. Hopefully we can see which works best and modify our behaviour voluntarily so people are actually helped, because... The state doesn't help the poor! It might consistently manage to make sure everyone is robbed, but the vast majority of that money does not go to help the poor, and what does, doesn't help, at all. The alternative to a minority not funding your scheme, is not for the state to solve the problem, it's to have no solution at all. And even though you think this is a special argument because "helping people", modify your position a bit and look at what you're really saying. "We need to force people to give money to my business, otherwise they might give it to a competitor, and I want the money".

Or, put shorter. Free will isn't real, therefore you were bad for using your free will to decide what to do with your forum. And other unjustified assertions.

I was going to mention in the Socialism Works post but it seems nitpicky. However, here it seems more relevant... Daniel Hannan is not a Member of the House of Commons, never has been. Perhaps you're thinking of his good friend Douglas Carswell? Who is infact, more Libertarian, though both are weak by American standards - they're far from Ron Paul. I think Carswell is the only person who ever used the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" in Parliament.

Tbh, just picking this one contradiction was incredibly difficult, your article is completely invalid at almost every point, however as your main point seems to be that moral responsibility doesn't exist, this example of you giving moral responsibility to one if the non-protected classes is pretty important. Perhaps you should find out what moral responsibility is by the way? That you think it might have anything to do with the responsibility of a writer for a reader pulling on his own hair is a straw man at best and poisoning the well with arsenic at worst. Tl;dr as always with these "scientific" determinist arguments, you take away moral culpability from the protected classes, but you require (its the very reason you wrote an article) that everybody else is even more morally culpable than ever.

Will someone who can, 1-up this! It always feels great ot be reminded we are on a forum run by people who think and consider things reasonably instead of blindly applying rules.

FYI, determinism, and therefore lack of freewill, isn't an acceptable topic on the forums, and it says so during sign up. The topic has been done to death, is completely self-contradictary and wastes server resources. I know you couldn't help posting about it, because you have no free will, but the admins couldn't help banning it, I can't help making this post and you probably can't help being critical of all this, despite the fact your there was therefore no point in you making this case in the first place...

Yes. No. In reality though, you haven't given enough information. Are you assuming the State exists and is doing the force? Does the receiving parent allow full access to the paying parent? Did the receiving parent really attempt at reconciliation, continuing the relationship and attend counselling? Does the receiving parent spend the money on the child? Why can't the paying parent pay for the child directly? And so much more... In reality, you need to take a step back in any given situation and ask why the parents aren't together, and how you can judge anything when something completely wrong for the child has clearly already happened.