ProfessionalTeabagger

Unless you make an argument as to why his use of it is not valid then you're just saying you don't like it.

You DID get the concept wrong and you continue to. The NAP is NOT just declaring something without reason. It is a principle, not a commandment. There's nothing religious about it. Whether or not someone would violate the NAP if the benefits were sufficiently high enough (something you do not know about me and, much like everything else you claim, have not demonstrated) is irrlevant to whether or not it is a valid concept or just a rule of thumb. People can violate the MNAP whether it's valid or not. That's the whole damn point of a moral principle. Self-interest is also irrelevant to whether the NAP is valid or not. Calling the NAP a maxim that is without empirical or logical reasoning shows your ignorance as many people have put forward the nap with reasoning. It's just an insult. I don't know what "works" means. "Works" is generally used (by relativists, subjectivists, consequentialists usually) to mean "produces an outcome favorable to one's subjective preferences". There's no philosophical reason to accept the term "works" as if it's objective (unless you give a valid definition of "works"). I certainly don't know what the hell "works in all ways" means". This is just nonsense. It's not a rule of thumb. It is a principle. Rules of thumb are just suggestions. Principles have consistent logical consequences that occur when violated. Violations of this principle result in a contradiction within one's moral justifications. If it was just a rule of thumb then this would not be the case.

What are you talking about?

Hang on, what? Are you saying the NAP is not a principle because an expressed principle is a maxim and as the NAP is an expressed principle it is a maxim? What do you mean "only a guide"? Aren't ALL principles guides? What has usefulness got to do with with whether it's a principle or not?

You get the concept wrong. The NAP says aggression cannot be morally justified. It's not a "primary objective". It's not an objective at all. It's a principle. A principle. That means it's either valid or not. Your evaluation of it as "poor" is philosophically irrelevant. You also spend most of the time going on about how it's not as good as "ego utilitarianism" / "self-interest". It's obvious you wish to promote this view and see the NAP as competition. Do have a reason that it is "merely a maxim"?

So your answer is yes. Everyone must be a socialist or be violently forced to live under socialism, right?

Right, so socialism is coercive then. So if I and my friends go live as capitalists (accepting private property and non-aggression) while allowing you to live as a socialist then you will violently force me to be socialist?

You are in on it. Why else do you keep repeated the claim over and over again? You are part of a double bluff. By making such preposterous and incompetent arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons and the moon landing you are making the proponents of those lies seem credible. You are a shill and you've been caught.

I have found Owen from RSD to be especially inspirational for many areas of life other than pick-up. I would love to see Stef interview him. As for pua being manipulative, men are often already being manipulative when they try to get women. These pick-up techniques simply teach competence and in some ways allow one to become less manipulative and more successful .

This story may be mostly false. http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/rainwater.asp

But she didn't give you something to believe in and let you figure it out on your own. She told you it was true. She helped prop up beliefs like hell.

That's great. I guess you could capitalize on it. Make hay while the sun shines, if you will.

It is? Okay, then we have no real problem. We an-caps (with our fairy tales, etc) can go our way and you go yours. Agreed?

You are an oversensitive, passive aggressive jackass. Are you actually suggesting Mike knew who you were but pretended not to and still asked you to call in? Are you saying you are being singled out for moderator approval? Are you saying the only reason people down-vote you is because because you oppose Stefan or because we think he's perfectly accurate? Have you any proof for this? If there's a fallacy then that's your fault for using the term "non-violent". Don't use terms that don't mean what they appear to mean and then accuse others of fallacies because they may not be aware of certain caveats.

"Needs" is a vague term. It's not philosophically precise and cannot be defined. Technically there are no needs, only wants, but using the general notion of needs (what is basically necessary for survival, health and relative happiness) you cannot arrive at any valid conclusion that isn't just an opinion. So the idea that communism provides for people's needs is a pretense. It can only provide for what an individual communist thinks people need. People would also have to share responsibility for the yachts in common. That would include maintenance, liability, etc. So either you limit the yachts to those who are willing to take their share of responsibility or you make everyone responsible for them whether they use them or not. The first gets rid of common usage and the second makes those who do not use the yachts (maybe they think we don't NEED yachts) slaves to those who do. As this principle would be the same throughout a communist economy then you will get the same slavery throughout it. People who "need" less will be slaves to those who "need" more. So a humble man who wants to live simply "without yachts, etc) with just the basics will still have to provide his time and labor. THAT's a waste of resources. The Anti-capitalistic mentality discusses why intellectuals tend to hate capitalism. https://mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality

The true measure of price is not labor input. The price is what someone is willing to pay for the good. This can be seen in every relatively free economic exchange. Human need is subjective so how can it be a medium of exchange? It's impossible to agree on a standard of human need.

I guess I just can't "let go".

It's a good question, especially considering most people can't imagine doing this without a third party who has some exceptional power to grant property rights. If the land is not owned then you just use it. If you are putting it to legitimate use then that particular area of land is yours. Although that also means you are now responsible for it. That's pretty silly. How you "see" capitalism is irrelevant.

That's what I'm saying. Human beings are the horses. In fact we should also thank all the animals who suffered and died to sustain the human workforce who supplied the eggheads with their toy. Cows had just as much to do with these supposed important discoveries as most humans.

Humanity didn't do it. A tiny number of smart men did it. "Humanity" no more deserves credit than horses deserve credit for scientific achievements in the 19th century.

It's commendable that you are questioning the morality of your actions imho.

It's good you're honest about this and are giving it serious thought. My hunch is that if you're a needing a break and are possibly thinking that maybe you could do better then there is something missing in your relationship. Maybe identifying what that is would help. If you can't solve it but continue anyway the relationship will be permanently dysfunctional.

It wouldn't erase all morality because if anyone can do what they want to you or your property then they can apply morality to it.

The mind is part of the the body so yes. That's why it's called "self-ownership".

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What do you think "owning the consequences of your actions" means? Are you asking what is ownership or are you asking do we own something we steal? What specifically are you asking? Owning your body means you have exclusive control over your body. You would say "my own body" or my own lungs" or "my own brain" or "my own eyes". To OWN. Ownership. You have ownership over your body. Yes the body owns the body given that the mind is part of the body. That's why it's called self-ownership. There's no rational reason why the owner cannot also be the owned. We've just been brainwashed through thousands of years of rulers to reject this obvious fact.