ProfessionalTeabagger

Justifications should be logically consistent and universal if they are to be valid. The nazi accepts it is right to force his will on others while simultaneously denying others the right to force their will on him (as it's logically impossible). Therefore his justification breaks with universality and as such cannot be valid. He is wrong. As for the Marxist thing, just replace "wealth" with "vagina's" to see how deranged and evil it is.

Adoption.

Then I don't really understand YOUR point. Sorry. You can get your own land and make your own rules.

I just want to say that for the most part I am an anti-mafia, definitely libertarian. I am all for the non initiation of force, peaceful parenting, free market... But I can't think of a way to argue for non-mafia when people say: Well but then why don't you leave the neighborhood and go live in in another neighborhood? What I guess I am saying is that neighborhoods can be seen as land, property that is owned by the mafia. Think of the mafia as a company that has a board of directors that is always changing. And so, just like inside someone's else's property you have to obey their rules, the same could be said for the Mafia. Don't get me wrong, I really want someone to prove me wrong, but I can't think of anything and it's bothering me.

"True communism had everything to do with soviet Russia. People are given the same opportunities in capitalism. Government is a form social slavery but monetary systems aren't . White privilege is not real. Competitive capitalism is a stage in capitalism that still exists and always will. Blaming statists or statism for the sole reason for "crony capitalism" is correct. Capitalism does not force concentration of resources and capital, inevitably, there is always such a thing as voluntarily participating in the market system. The only reason why public education exists is to uphold the status quo. Science and technology advances were possible before and because of capitalism... But most advances have been quickened by the profit motive. Capitalism makes a human work better ... Socialism/Communism trains individuals to do simple minded tasks, often inefficiently. It stifles human creativity. Oh lastly and probably most important..... Human well being and a healthy economy is tied to purchasing power within a capitalist system, so don't raise the f***ing minimum wage... Why, because is illogical to artificially destroy people's lives in one area to pretend to improve people's lives in another and coercion is immoral. The US economy is 70% consumer spending... Get rid of the f***ing minimum wage and stop hurting people. Ohhh and... Because of capitalism women were more free to work but in socialism working any job makes anyone who they are."

Of course. You don't have to be an atheist. Infinitely better than a statist given that theists aren't necessarily initiating force on people.

No, I don't know were you got that idea. I don't know how it follows necessarily from what you were talking about. Defense has to be proportionate, otherwise it's just aggression.

It's not a social contract, it's a rational principle. It's not forced on you. "Rape, steal, assault are murder are wrong" or "Don't rape, murder, assault or steal" are not forced on you. If you initiate the violence then you are responsible for the legitimate defensive violence that follows. Your argument is a tiresome trick statists often use. When they say things like "...it can be used to legitimize violence against me" they fail to differentiate between initiatory violence and defensive violence. The NAP or property rights NEVER legitimize the initiation of violence against you. Do you understand?

The NAP is not forced on you. It's just a principle. For example , "Don't rape" is not forced on you. NOT raping is not being forced to DO something. He's free to reject his property rights. This statist can't tell the difference between the initiation of force and not being allowed to do something.

They already stole the money. They already stole the world you could have been living in. They owe you.

There are no specifics here. If the entire result of libertarian engagement in politics over 35 years is some vague claim of defeats of "tax measures" and the even vaguer "efforts related to term measures" then that's less than nothing. It's like saying I failed the exam completely but DID get one good mark for remembering to spell my name correctly. So that's SOMETHING. It's an abject failure that makes libertarians look idiotic. So true. People always think THEY will be the one to control it and use it for good.

I made out with him once in a basement.

Can you give me one positive effect of libertarians participation in politics/government over the past 35 years?

A4E is part of the disinformation campaign. He's a double agent. Shame on you A4E.

Not just intent. What are the agreed conditions between the householders? Did the person accept some pollution when they moved in? Is there some violation of contract? Is the person conscious that you do not want the smoke? Is the fire accidental? All these questions arise. You should not reason in mid-stream but instead provide the necessary details required in order to answer the question. The conclusion "Thus people are using aggression by driving " is a non sequitur. Damage to your body from human behavior is not sufficient to show aggression. Indirect damage to ones body by another human could be non-aggression and/or defensive. It's not possible for an act to be non-aggression and aggression at the same time. Therefore her assertion that pollution is aggression is false.

No because most people are reasoning from assumptions they're not even aware of. Ask the average person what their foundational principles are and they'll likely just give you opinions, cultural prejudice or dogma.

First principles are the foundational principles upon which you reason from. It's not propositions that rely on no other prior understanding.

What was her argument? Saying she "thinks..." is meaningless. Tired of wasting time on people who "think..." stuff. The second person is trying to poison you.

That's just a statement though. One could also just say, not putting out is the same as rape. What's the argument?

Well you ARE a resource too as you can create wealth so even his own theory logically fails. This person sees the world as a struggle for resources and humans as parasites who only consume. Why would you want to debate them?

"Libertarian socialist" sounds nicer than "communist".

Which particular balance with nature? If cockroaches took over the world then that would be the balance of nature. What is the balance of nature you think is objectively correct? Seeing as you wish to insult people here and not actually refute the arguments for capitalism with anything other than bumper-sticker propaganda I will share with you a secret that will save a lot of time for you and everyone else who has to listen to your insipid, leftist drivel. Here it is - If you don't want to be a capitalist then don't fucking be one. We're not forcing you and we don't need you. You go build a socialist society and we'll go be capitalists. We never need to bother each other again. You understand?

So what?

It's possible that this whole thing may be a marketing campaign for the movie that went too far. They'll probably make a movie about it one day. It'll probably have cameos from James Franco and Seth Rogan.

What's your point?